UFO congressional hearings

[Cypress]

New UFO hearings continue an “endless loop” of sensation​

Astronomer Adam Frank asks: With so many extraordinary claims, why can’t anybody produce the proof?

Two subcommittees of the House Oversight Committee recently held a joint hearing titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth.” As with previous congressional hearings on UAPs, there were many extraordinary claims but essentially no extraordinary evidence.

A few points about these extraordinary claims are worth noting. Sean Kirkpatrick was the recent director of the Department of Defense’s All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). This is one organization that’s been handling UAP studies. Kirkpatrick has talked about what he sees as a long-running circular conversation among UFO enthusiasts in the government. People who claim to know about something talk to other interested people. Those people then talk to others about that first person and their claims. This goes on and on until a kind of murky mythology builds up where no one has actual proof of anything, but everyone says they know someone who does.

New UFO hearings continue an "endless loop" of sensation

Astronomer Adam Frank asks: With so many extraordinary claims, why has nobody been able to produce the proof?

bigthink.com

 

[Yakuda]

New UFO hearings continue an “endless loop” of sensation​

Astronomer Adam Frank asks: With so many extraordinary claims, why can’t anybody produce the proof?

Two subcommittees of the House Oversight Committee recently held a joint hearing titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth.” As with previous congressional hearings on UAPs, there were many extraordinary claims but essentially no extraordinary evidence.

A few points about these extraordinary claims are worth noting. Sean Kirkpatrick was the recent director of the Department of Defense’s All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). This is one organization that’s been handling UAP studies. Kirkpatrick has talked about what he sees as a long-running circular conversation among UFO enthusiasts in the government. People who claim to know about something talk to other interested people. Those people then talk to others about that first person and their claims. This goes on and on until a kind of murky mythology builds up where no one has actual proof of anything, but everyone says they know someone who does.

New UFO hearings continue an "endless loop" of sensation

Astronomer Adam Frank asks: With so many extraordinary claims, why has nobody been able to produce the proof?

bigthink.com

I want to know why the sudden name change.

 

[Cypress]

I want to know why the sudden name change.

The two theories I have are:

UFO is a term now associated with kooks and fringe theorists.

How do we know they actually "flying" and aerodynamically designed to do so, rather than some unidentified atmospheric or optical phenomena?

 

[Daylight63]

I want to know why the sudden name change.

Probably to cover up the TRUTH. That's always why they change names of things. They are hiding the aliens among us!

Thank GOD we have SPACE FORCE now to DEPORT 'EM ALL BACK TO URANUS.

 

[Cypress]

Five billion smart phones on the planet and the best we have are some grainy videos and indistinct photos.

 

[Taichiliberal]

IMHO, it's all an official con job - let's call it UAP to subconsciously lend to the notion of something NOT of physical construct but of natural (ecological) formation.

And this joker running around doing his "I was AATIP leader," seems to consistently lean towards "secret gov't proto-types" as the culprits, whether by USA or other gov't design.

Ahh, I love to watch the BS about the "black triangles" that were seen and tracked by the Belgian air force, or witnessed by multitudes in Phoenix, AZ or over the Hudson river in NY.

 

[Cypress]

Five billion smart phones on the planet and the best we have are some grainy videos and indistinct photos.

Hard to believe with billions of smart phones on the planet this is the best we can do.

 

[Cypress]

Five billion smart phones on the planet and the best we have are some grainy videos and indistinct photos.

Pentagon received hundreds of new UAP reports, but says no evidence of extraterrestrial activity​

Pentagon received hundreds of new UAP reports, but says no evidence of extraterrestrial activity

The report was published a day after the second major hearing on UAPs was held in Congress, where leaders called for greater transparency from the Pentagon on UAP knowledge.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Taichiliberal]

Pentagon received hundreds of new UAP reports, but says no evidence of extraterrestrial activity​

Pentagon received hundreds of new UAP reports, but says no evidence of extraterrestrial activity

The report was published a day after the second major hearing on UAPs was held in Congress, where leaders called for greater transparency from the Pentagon on UAP knowledge.

www.nbcnews.com

Here's the thing: Why are the infamous film & photos from navel fighter jets all grainy and blurry? Why are the CLEAR OUTLINE of the "Phoenix Lights" consistently met with weak skepticism? Why are the definitive reports by the Belgian Air Force (a NATO ally) constantly down played.

I could go on, but you get my point.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Hard to believe with billions of smart phones on the planet this is the best we can do.

Well, in most cases it's because the object(s) being photographed are in poor light conditions and at distances that will make them indistinct in a smartphone's camera capability. For example, what is the altitude and distance of the lights shown above from the photographer? Given that there are trees in the picture along with the horizon visible and if we know the location where the photo was taken, it should be possible to work out the altitude and range of the lights shown.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Probably to cover up the TRUTH. That's always why they change names of things. They are hiding the aliens among us!

Thank GOD we have SPACE FORCE now to DEPORT 'EM ALL BACK TO URANUS.

 

[Cypress]

Well, in most cases it's because the object(s) being photographed are in poor light conditions and at distances that will make them indistinct in a smartphone's camera capability. For example, what is the altitude and distance of the lights shown above from the photographer? Given that there are trees in the picture along with the horizon visible and if we know the location where the photo was taken, it should be possible to work out the altitude and range of the lights shown.

I think there are way too many billions of smartphones on the planet now to have any excuses for not having a shit load of crystal clear and unambiguous videos of alien spaceships.

The explanation that the Phoenix lights were Air Force flares is plausible to me. I don't think there is any good photographic evidence of the Belgian UFO swarm, and Belgian Air Force pilots did not make any visual contact. The English crop circles are known to be a hoax.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I think there are way too many billions of smartphones on the planet now to have any excuses for not having a shit load of crystal clear and unambiguous videos of alien spaceships.

Not really. Smartphone cameras weren't intended to take pictures of stuff miles away from them.

The explanation that the Phoenix lights were Air Force flares is plausible to me. I don't think there is any good photographic evidence of the Belgian UFO swarm, and Belgian Air Force pilots did not make any visual contact. The English crop circles are known to be a hoax.

There were two different "Phoenix lights" that night. The first ones occurred around dusk and just after dark. Those were the UFO, and it's pretty damn clear it was a UFO. Unfortunately, that was before widespread smartphones were around or there would be pictures. In fact, there were a number of sightings of similar lights and a UFO in many parts of the world around that time.

As for the second set, those were seen south of South Mountain over the Goldwater bombing range and were just the USAF using flares at night. Those occurred several hours after the first set of sightings.

 

[Cypress]

Not really. Smartphone cameras weren't intended to take pictures of stuff miles away from them.

You assume all UFO encounters are "miles away". If alien spaceships have been visiting for decades, and millions of photos and videos are taken every-hour-of-every-day by five billion smart phones on the planet, the laws of probability dictate we would have a shitload of crystal clear and unambigous digital evidence of alien interstellar starships.

There were two different "Phoenix lights" that night. The first ones occurred around dusk and just after dark. Those were the UFO, and it's pretty damn clear it was a UFO. Unfortunately, that was before widespread smartphones were around or there would be pictures. In fact, there were a number of sightings of similar lights and a UFO in many parts of the world around that time.

As for the second set, those were seen south of South Mountain over the Goldwater bombing range and were just the USAF using flares at night. Those occurred several hours after the first set of sightings.

I've never been convinced that "lights in the sky" was good evidence for extraterrestrial alien starships.

Drone technology was probably around and used by the military and LE decades before it was sold on the commercial market. I'm guessing a lot of people in the 1980s mistook drones for intergalactic alien spaceships.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You assume all UFO encounters are "miles away". If alien spaceships have been visiting for decades, and millions of photos and videos are taken every-hour-of-every-day by five billion smart phones on the planet, the laws of probability dictate we would have a shitload of crystal clear and unambigous digital evidence of alien interstellar starships.

If a UFO were at 5,000 ft AGL and you were photographing it at some slant angle, then it is miles away. 5,000 feet isn't that high for an aircraft to be operating at.

I've never been convinced that "lights in the sky" was good evidence for extraterrestrial alien starships.

Drone technology was probably around and used by the military and LE decades before it was sold on the commercial market. I'm guessing a lot of people in the 1980s mistook drones for intergalactic alien spaceships.

The Phoenix lights incident had people directly observe the craft, not just the lights, even if they failed to get photographs of it. Some other sightings in the Great Lakes region and in Europe had people with similar sightings and descriptions of a UFO as well around the same time.

 

[IBDaMann]

Regarding Global Warming and the proverbial "The Data", Cypress brings up a great point:

People who claim to know about something talk to other interested people. Those people then talk to others about that first person and their claims. This goes on and on until a kind of murky mythology builds up where no one has actual proof of anything, but everyone says they know someone who does.

Warmizombies and Climate lemmings harp on and on and on and on about what "The Data" show, even though nobody has ever seen any, owing to the fact that there aren't any. @Cypress - spot on! Very apropos.

 

[IBDaMann]

If a UFO were at 5,000 ft AGL and you were photographing it at some slant angle, then it is miles away. 5,000 feet isn't that high for an aircraft to be operating at.

All UFOs are terrestrial in nature and are tracked by the DoD. All cases of "we can't explain it" or "we have no further information on this case" are simply deliberate decisions to not divulge true intelligence capabilities.

 

[Trumpet]

Regarding Global Warming and the proverbial "The Data", Cypress brings up a great point:



Warmizombies and Climate lemmings harp on and on and on and on about what "The Data" show, even though nobody has ever seen any, owing to the fact that there aren't any. @Cypress - spot on! Very apropos.

What does UFOs and global warming have in common???????

 

[Daylight63]

What does UFOs and global warming have in common???????

Let me take a stab at that: ONE Of them is unmoored from the requirement of the noun to match the verb in terms of plural vs singular?

 

[Trumpet]

Let me take a stab at that: ONE Of them is unmoored from the requirement of the noun to match the verb in terms of plural vs singular?

So what is the relevance of what you posted????