It legitimately freaks me out that this is a New York Times article. There was a rather convincing video, though, that debunked all of the “UFO videos” that were released, recently. Most...
It legitimately freaks me out that this is a New York Times article.
There was a rather convincing video, though, that debunked all of the “UFO videos” that were released, recently. Most conspiracy theories work the same way: See a pattern and look for the most exciting explanation—rather than the most sensible one.
Me too, although maybe not for the exact same reason; this is framed as an almost pointless bit of pedantry. We can all recognize that "Do you believe in UFOs?" is used as a shorthand for, "Do you...
It legitimately freaks me out that this is a New York Times article.
Me too, although maybe not for the exact same reason; this is framed as an almost pointless bit of pedantry. We can all recognize that "Do you believe in UFOs?" is used as a shorthand for, "Do you believe UFOs are evidence of extraterrestrial life?", with the tacit understanding that there are a number of unexplained phenomenon that probably have mundane explanations, but also a number that don't. Regardless of which side of the fence your opinion falls on, everybody without clearance (besides the wackos) recognizes they're speculating and don't know the facts.
Well, I think we're still comfortably far from a scenario where we would have to emotionally prepare for the possibility real-life aliens. The video I mentioned is sobering. The weirdest part...
Well, I think we're still comfortably far from a scenario where we would have to emotionally prepare for the possibility real-life aliens. The video I mentioned is sobering.
The weirdest part about the article is that they're starting to directly reference crashed "AAVs" ("advanced aerospace vehicles", specifically not Russian or Chinese) which are an entirely different topic. But it's oh-so-hard to get that info, probably because it doesn't actually exist. That's the most boring and thus most likely explanation.
Navy: Our best pilots and radar operators think this is a UAE. Internet randos: Here's a video proving you guys can't operate your own equipment. I find those debunking videos to be hilariously...
Navy: Our best pilots and radar operators think this is a UAE.
Internet randos: Here's a video proving you guys can't operate your own equipment.
I find those debunking videos to be hilariously unconvincing. :P
I think the poster means "UAV", "unidentified aerial vehicle"? Also it's a good point that it's likely the navy has considered all the explanations internet armchair analysts have come up with....
I think the poster means "UAV", "unidentified aerial vehicle"? Also it's a good point that it's likely the navy has considered all the explanations internet armchair analysts have come up with. But even the navy makes mistakes and maybe these reports never really got a lot of expert attention? Here's the video I was referring to. IMO "this is impossible and nobody knows what it is" is a more unlikely explanation than the infrared camera showing images that are easy to misinterpret.
Our previous stories were relatively easy to document with Department of Defense videos of U.F.O.s and pilot eyewitness accounts backed up by Navy hazard reports of close encounters with small speeding objects.
But our latest article provided a more daunting set of challenges, since we dealt with the possible existence of retrieved materials from U.F.O.s. Going from data on a distant object in the sky to the possession of a retrieved one on the ground makes a leap that many find hard to accept and that clearly demands extraordinary evidence.
Numerous associates of the Pentagon program, with high security clearances and decades of involvement with official U.F.O. investigations, told us they were convinced such crashes have occurred, based on their access to classified information. But the retrieved materials themselves, and any data about them, are completely off-limits to anyone without clearances and a need to know.
It legitimately freaks me out that this is a New York Times article.
There was a rather convincing video, though, that debunked all of the “UFO videos” that were released, recently. Most conspiracy theories work the same way: See a pattern and look for the most exciting explanation—rather than the most sensible one.
Me too, although maybe not for the exact same reason; this is framed as an almost pointless bit of pedantry. We can all recognize that "Do you believe in UFOs?" is used as a shorthand for, "Do you believe UFOs are evidence of extraterrestrial life?", with the tacit understanding that there are a number of unexplained phenomenon that probably have mundane explanations, but also a number that don't. Regardless of which side of the fence your opinion falls on, everybody without clearance (besides the wackos) recognizes they're speculating and don't know the facts.
Well, I think we're still comfortably far from a scenario where we would have to emotionally prepare for the possibility real-life aliens. The video I mentioned is sobering.
The weirdest part about the article is that they're starting to directly reference crashed "AAVs" ("advanced aerospace vehicles", specifically not Russian or Chinese) which are an entirely different topic. But it's oh-so-hard to get that info, probably because it doesn't actually exist. That's the most boring and thus most likely explanation.
Navy: Our best pilots and radar operators think this is a UAE.
Internet randos: Here's a video proving you guys can't operate your own equipment.
I find those debunking videos to be hilariously unconvincing. :P
What is "UAE" in this context? I'm assuming it's not the small gulf oil state, but I can't find another meaning that seems more relevant.
Unidentified
Aerial
Extraterrestrial
Aliens are real
I assume it actually stands for Unsteady Aerodynamics Experiment.
I think the poster means "UAV", "unidentified aerial vehicle"? Also it's a good point that it's likely the navy has considered all the explanations internet armchair analysts have come up with. But even the navy makes mistakes and maybe these reports never really got a lot of expert attention? Here's the video I was referring to. IMO "this is impossible and nobody knows what it is" is a more unlikely explanation than the infrared camera showing images that are easy to misinterpret.
They decided to rebrand UFOs as UAPs for some reason, 'unidentified aerial phenomenon' but I got the acronym wrong.
From the article: