Five Reasons to Be Skeptical about that New York Times UFO Story

a reply to: Revolution9

So, are you willing to hinge the whole question of intelligent life observing us on this one case? Are you willing to make the sweeping accusation that IF the video is a hoax, intelligent life ABSOLUTELY isn't observing us?

a reply to: shawmanfromny

I'm an air force brat and believe it's shameful, to discredit and doubt military pilots, on what they observed, on a perfect, "clear" day.

CONTEMPORARY PILOT MISPERCEPTIONS OF MISSILE/SPACE EVENTS
www.zipworld.com.au...

Pilot report from Soviet missile test
www.nbcnews.com...

1936 REPORT ON WHY PILOTS ARE POOR OBSERVERS OF METEORS
adsabs.harvard.edu...

originally posted by: Spider879
I'll take the same view as Neil de Grasse Tyson, We don't know what the object is, he is clearly not impressed, however he did say we should investigate such phenomenon, NASA astronaut Mark Lee is of the same opinion.

Where was Lee quoted? Did he admit to any astronauts seeing UFOs in space?

originally posted by: KeithCooper
I find the ever sceptical stubborness of many here laughable. The hubris shown even after being spoon fed information from credible witnesses (with video, ground radar, airborne radar, gun camera footage and high ranking officer testimony) just leads one to doubt the very intellectual depth of the sceptic. Reasonable doubt is one thing and religious zeal is quite another....seems our sceptics here at ATS have crossed over from logic to theology (using Occam's razor, of course).

Aren't they just saying to be cautious until the information is completely released and analyzed?

After all, doesn't Kean still have egg on her face over recently falling for the Chile helicopter IR video that turned out to be a scheduled airliner?

The main reason to be skeptical of the article was not mentioned in the OP:

It was published by the New York Times.

a reply to: elevenaugust

Great points about the fallibility of human observers, even highly trained ones! I find it more than a little disconcerting when people would trust something requires an EXTRAORDINARY amount of evidence, like confirmation of alien contact, just because the person saying it has been highly trained. People are not computers, and should they ever be expected to perceive flawlessly. Heck, computers shouldn't either!

The footage we've been shown of the "rotating" UFO seems very dubious when you realize that the same effect can be recreated with a light source, a FLIR camera, and a lens rotating in front of it.

And, what do you know, The ATFLIR pod that filmed this footage consists of a camera sensor that sits behind a swiveling/rotating lens! A gimbal system!


Now, with that revelation in mind, we can consider the effects seen on the other video, entitled FLIR1. The way the object purportedly "accelerates" of screen could very plausibly be caused by the ATFLIR camera suddenly losing lock on the target (an indisinct blob which, if we're honest, could be anything). It is a fact that ATFLIR pods are also not perfect. The rapid switching between zoom and b/w mode by the pilot could possibly indicate that he was having trouble with a fussy ATFLIR pod.

In light of the actual evidence we've been given here, all of these scenarios are more plausible than the assertion that an otherworldy craft was being observed, and so it seems the obligation of a serious, rational investigator would be to consider them seriously.

First do we know that Elizondo actually worked for the DOD and second where did he get the video footage?
If he did work for them how would we know he worked in an actual UFO investigation program?

Did he smuggle the video away from his job? If so then is that the best footage they have after all these supposed encounters with military jets?
If he did take the footage without permission why wouldn't he just be arrested? Doesn't matter if you have footage of a ufo or of a 4th of July cookout with the DOD, If it's their property and you don't have license to use it then it's an illegal move.
Especially if you just quit working for them, it would be so obvious.

a reply to: joelr


You know, joelr, that is not a bad question. Elizondo worked within the DOD system, and specifically on this UFO research wing, so IS this video the best they've got? Why this video in particular?

And for that matter, I don't believe we have been given the chain of custody details about this video, that Tom Delonge very specifically promised. Have we?

a reply to: JimOberg

"Thus it might surprise us that a pilot had trouble identifying other aircraft, but it should come as no surprise that the majority of pilot misidentifications were of astronomical objects." Dell page 271

As it was dark when the object was observed, the crew were unable to discern its shape.

www.zipworld.com.au...

Every case brought up in your article Jim, were on sightings that occurred at night, not in broad daylight in clear conditions and 50 mile visibility. Visibility so good, that the pilot saw that the object had no plumes, wings or rotors.

Commander Fravor told The New York Times the object was about 40ft long, had no plumes, wings or rotors, and outpaced their F-18s. It was big enough to churn the sea 50ft below it, he said.

www.independent.co.uk...

This article, was on a sighting that occurred at night too:

The tale of the Minsk UFO sighting can teach a lesson about the vigor of unidentified flying objects as a cultural phenomenon. A passenger jet is flying north on Sept. 7, 1984, near Minsk, in present-day Belarus. Suddenly, at 4:10 a.m., the flight crew notices a glowing object out their forward right window.

www.nbcnews.com...

The F-18 pilots were not chasing a "globe of light" or "celestial object." Nor was this object a misidentifed "rocket launch."

So it’s no surprise that pilots have sent their planes into a dive to duck under a fireball meteor that was really 50 miles away, or have dodged a flaming falling satellite passing 60 miles overhead. Even celestial objects are misperceived by pilots more frequently than by any other category of witness, UFO investigator J. Allen Hynek concluded 30 years ago.

Once the Plesetsk Cosmodrome (south of Arkhangelsk) began launching satellites in 1966, skywatchers throughout the northwestern Soviet Union began seeing vast glowing clouds and lights moving through the skies. These were officially non-existent rocket launchings.

www.nbcnews.com...

Your third article discusses meteors and meteorites and discusses how pilots misidentify these as unidentified aerial phenomenon. Does a meteor "descend toward the ocean and hover at 20,000 feet before dropping out of radar range or blasting back up?"

This is what Fravor says happened. He and another pilot were with the USS Nimitz training in F/A-18F Super Hornets about 100 miles out in the Pacific Ocean when someone on the Navy cruiser USS Princeton contacted them by radio about mysterious aircraft.

The ship had been tracking objects that were described as being whitish, 40 feet long and shaped like Tic Tacs that would appear suddenly 80,000 feet up, then descend toward the ocean and hover at 20,000 feet before dropping out of radar range or blasting back up.

www.sandiegouniontribune.com...

Are pilots totally infallible...of course not. They're humans and certainly can make observational mistakes. All the links you posted, prove that pilots can sometimes misinterpret celestial bodies and meteors at night. However, this was a daytime sighting in crystal clear weather. This object was also tracked on radar. Could it be "one of ours?" That is certainly possible, but why test a secret, black-op craft in an area where it could be tracked by a naval ship and targeted by a F-18 fighter?

Your post IMO, shows how sceptics will find anything to debunk a genuine sighting, in this case, by a military pilot with 18 years experience under his belt. It's wise to be sceptical on any potential UFO sighting, but this witness obviously did not see a celestial body or meterorite.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Thanks for reading and commenting.

Wasn't the Chile helo sighting [of a commercial airliner] in daytime?

a reply to: Iridomyrmex

Great analysis, and I love your respectfully critical style.

Having used FLIR pods and seen the variation from pod to pod and how different manufacturers make better/worse pods, I can say that your assessment is spot on. The Gimbal video is odd. It could be a camera/pod related flare/imperfection. If the audio is correct, I would speculate that would lend more credence to it being an actual flying object, but if the aircrew was looking solely at the FLIR footage, it could be some sort of lens flare.

Regarding your statement "The rapid switching between zoom and b/w mode by the pilot could possibly indicate that he was having trouble with a fussy ATFLIR pod."

Our RIOs/WSOs were trained to use different modes in order to best identify targets. They would frequently switch between White Hot and Black Hot because often, one of those modes would make the target clearer. Also, depending on the target, zooming in/out could also help identify the target. The technique is mostly used when using the FLIR pod in air to ground engagements, since finding the right target visually is so critical. But the WSO in that video is a colleague of mine, and he's very good. I didn't always work with the best back-seaters, but I can attest that this person is smart, thorough and knows the most recent/best techniques being taught by the tactics schools.

The technique of switching back and forth in modes relies upon the school of thought that the footage is being recorded and can be reviewed by the Intel guys, frame by frame. So, the technique is to go from one mode, hold a few seconds, switch modes, hold a few seconds, zoom in, hold a few seconds, zoom out, hold a few seconds. If they were going to launch/bomb that target, the WSO would evaluate the best view from what he saw, and keep that mode through employment of the weapon. If you ever get a chance to see some bomb footage with FLIR pods, you'll see the crew ID the target, drop the weapon and guide it, usually in a zoomed in mode. At impact, you'll see them switch to a zoomed out mode, in order to capture the bomb damage assessment footage required to ensure the target is effectively neutralized.

My guess is that the WSO didn't have a clear image of the tic-tac and kept switching modes because he never could clearly see what the object was. If it was a clearly identified object, let's say a helicopter, he would have kept it in one mode longer.

People never give eyewitnesses enough credit imo. Even a joe-schmuck on the street, observing something for close to 5 minutes, could probably identify if something is a drone or not.

If you believe in Occam's razor what is more plausible, extraterrestrials or an egg-shaped ducted-fan drone with no wings?

I think it was some kind of super high speed high G maneuverable done.

So a fan-based drone can fly over 2k MPH? I sort of doubt that. It went 40 miles in under a minute. Wasn't a jet-based drone. Fan based could not do this. Also the jets couldn't lock on with radar. Also it was not disturbing the water.. the object under the water, that was well over 350 feet long, was disturbing the water.

Propulsion systems is where the rubber meets the road. The -only- thing that could have traveled that distance in that short of time that wasn't rocket / jet propelled, is something we don't know about yet. So either we have that super-advanced tech (or some government does), or.. it wasn't from these parts.

Been that way for a while now.. it's always ignored however. Massive craft that hover without sound, then accelerate away, etc. Even in the 60 there were jets chasing down UFOs that easily outpaced them. There always seems to be this super advanced tech governments have.. but never actually use, for some reason.

a reply to: fleabit

Who says folks dont know about it and who says they dont use it.

1. The Pentagon didn’t release those UFO videos, an official connected to a Las Vegas company who resigned in October did.

Nobody ever truly 'retires' from SAP service. You are ever at the beck & call of the government, and you damn well dance when they play a tune. Currently, that tune appears to be a coordinated, worldwide dissemination of serious articles regarding legitimate UFO activity, with information being released to the effect that the government knows that the UFO phenomenon is real, and that at least some of the events are evidence of alien life taking an interest in humanity.

Here's a link to my thread showing that these information drops, and a serious adjustment in the tone of stories regarding the UFO phenomenon, are most definitely occurring, and there's simply no hiding it...

Two serious UFO articles in Famous British mainstream newspaper on same day - with a twist...

And here's another thread discussing the fact that this is a coordinated drop into the world of serious journalism, this time in Popular Mechanics, referring to the Aviationist:

ATS mentioned in Popular Mechanics Navy UFO story

And here's the original NY Times drop:

New York Times : "The Pentagon's Mysterious UFO Program" (plus DeLonge's new website/videos)

This is real, it's happening now, and it cannot be denied. The details of all these stories (and more), when taken together, demonstrates the concrete reality of a coordinated program of information drops & serious journalistic pieces regarding the REALITY (affirmed by the US government) of the UFO phenomenon, and the alien hypothesis. No mockery, no ridicule - just serious journalism, regarding a serious shift in the approach to affirming the reality of the phenomenon.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: fleabit

Who says folks dont know about it and who says they dont use it.

Well I can't argue against a claim that there are unicorns and pixies, either. The last bastion of defense for solid cases.. "UFO because.. black project!" is indefensible. Which is a good way to pick out the good cases quite often.. the ones where it is claimed that a government has an amazing technology no one knows about. In this case, a propulsion tech with amazing potential. But.. sshhh.. don't tell anyone, the government might use it some decade!

a reply to: fleabit

The difference between my argument and yours is that you are comming from a position of ignorance, Im not

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Spider879
I'll take the same view as Neil de Grasse Tyson, We don't know what the object is, he is clearly not impressed, however he did say we should investigate such phenomenon, NASA astronaut Mark Lee is of the same opinion.

Where was Lee quoted? Did he admit to any astronauts seeing UFOs in space?

He was doing an interview on CNN?? I think ,he said he and other astronauts saw many weird things, but all turned out to be explainable.

He also suggested the craft could have been some super secret black budget thing, both he and Tyson ,imo however didn't speculate about exotic mode of transportation or physics to get any visitors from one star system to the next.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Altho your clearly impressed with the MSN's coverage of this, it's not enough to base an informed opinion on. So I'm suggesting you get acquainted with the "players" and am curious what you think of this?

originally posted by: fleabit
People never give eyewitnesses enough credit imo. Even a joe-schmuck on the street, observing something for close to 5 minutes, could probably identify if something is a drone or not.

If you believe in Occam's razor what is more plausible, extraterrestrials or an egg-shaped ducted-fan drone with no wings?

I think it was some kind of super high speed high G maneuverable done.

So a fan-based drone can fly over 2k MPH? I sort of doubt that. It went 40 miles in under a minute. Wasn't a jet-based drone. Fan based could not do this. Also the jets couldn't lock on with radar. Also it was not disturbing the water.. the object under the water, that was well over 350 feet long, was disturbing the water.

Propulsion systems is where the rubber meets the road. The -only- thing that could have traveled that distance in that short of time that wasn't rocket / jet propelled, is something we don't know about yet. So either we have that super-advanced tech (or some government does), or.. it wasn't from these parts.

Been that way for a while now.. it's always ignored however. Massive craft that hover without sound, then accelerate away, etc. Even in the 60 there were jets chasing down UFOs that easily outpaced them. There always seems to be this super advanced tech governments have.. but never actually use, for some reason.

In response, you are making the mistake between military type drones and those available to the public. The military types include, but are NOT limited by definition, to the slower craft you are talking about. The Militaries definition is much different than the general publics.

I think you should check out this thread to get a feel for some of the stuff we actually do have.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's not a wild goose chase, I promise you!

a reply to: cosmania

Thanks! Great, it looks like you have some experience with this sort of camera system.

So am I correct that you think the 'Gimbal' encounter, and the rotation, is more likely a lens flare? And being a rotating lens flare, there is no reason to assume an actual rotating object, and every reason to assume the pilots are watching and commenting on the image from the display? Thus no reason to assume that any actual thing in the video has shown any sort of otherworldy qualities/aerodynamics/technology whatsoever?

And about the Nimitz case, do you agree that the 'Tic-Tac' footage does not show Cmdr. Daniel Fravor's description of an object "ping-ponging around", nor does it show "two things coming out of the bottom"? And is the sudden, yet steady motion of the "tic-tac" off screen at the end more likely be a result of the ATFLIR pod losing track, possibly locking up?