NASA to start UFO investigations...

[martin-w 3,235]

This is Mick Wests original video from 2019. He makes a model to demonstrate.

 

 

[sightseer 895]

34 minutes ago, martin-w said:

I think I mentioned in our PM's that I could imagine some kind of electromagnetic effect being responsible. We know that we can attach electrodes to peoples heads and by subjecting them to various EM and magnetic fields, generate all manner of emotions and visual filed effects.

I think you've misunderstood the article.  The EMF section starts by talking about how GMF/EMF might cause individuals to perceive things that weren't there but then continues with the part I quoted that says (to me) that in some detailed studies with videotaped/audio recorded evidence, the EMF has no source explanation.

[birdguy 3,943]

From the wiki link to Skinwalker Ranch:  According to Kelleher and Knapp, they saw or investigated evidence of close to 100 incidents that include vanishing and mutilated cattle, sightings of unidentified flying objects or orbs, large animals with piercing red eyes that they say were unscathed when struck by bullets, and invisible objects emitting destructive magnetic fields.

What!  No Sasquatch or Bigfoot sightings?

Noel

[martin-w 3,235]

14 minutes ago, sightseer said:

I think you've misunderstood the article.  The EMF section starts by talking about how GMF/EMF might cause individuals to perceive things that weren't there but then continues with the part I quoted that says (to me) that in some detailed studies with videotaped/audio recorded evidence, the EMF has no source explanation.

 

Yes, I wasn't referring to the article, just the effect of electromagnetic fields as you mentioned EM. 

I thought Id mentioned this in out PM's but just checked and I hadn't. IF the ghost thing is a real phenomenon, perhaps some kind of magnetic or electromagnetic anomaly captures images from the past. Weird, speculative, but who knows. 

Edited June 26, 2022 by martin-w

[dmwalker 603]

55 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Radar onboard the vessels

I suppose that what I mean is, if the photographic evidence is all at extreme zoom, it means that the pilots were never within visual range and never visually confirmed the target.

[sightseer 895]

22 minutes ago, birdguy said:

and invisible objects emitting destructive magnetic fields.

you mean like a really tiny black hole? (its rhetorical)

Edited June 26, 2022 by sightseer

[martin-w 3,235]

30 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

I suppose that what I mean is, if the photographic evidence is all at extreme zoom, it means that the pilots were never within visual range and never visually confirmed the target.

 

Re the tic tac, Fravor Dietrich and their back seaters were in visual range. Dietrich and her WSO (an instructor) were up at 27,000, she saw it for 5 seconds she told Mick West. Fravor and the guy in his back seat engaged it in a two circle manouver so visual. When he intercepted it it shot across his nose, pretty close.

As for the 2015 incident, (gimbal) Ryan Graves reported that a cube within a sphere shot between two jets as close as 50 feet. So again visual.

If the reports are true of corse.

[martin-w 3,235]

57 minutes ago, birdguy said:

What!  No Sasquatch or Bigfoot sightings?

 

If they'd have thought of it, I'm sure they'd have included them. 😁

[DaviiB 104]

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

I think its worth remembering that there's a truck load of money to be made from the phenomenon. Lectures, books, TV appearances, documentaries, etc. What that does is muddy the waters and make it harder for us to determine if we are being given an unbiased opinion. 

I meant specifically with respect to the the information that is being 'disclosed'  by the government and the story that's being told. It's either a breathtaking amount of incompetence (on purpose?) , or deliberate lies / obfuscation. Again, perhaps some sort of gaslighting at play? 

These videos were 'leaked' vs released, no? Nobody is saying these are the best videos available. 

 

I'd exercise care around Robert Shaffer (the author quoted in that Wikipedia article) one could argue that he's doing the same on the other side of this topic. His explanation for the Nuclear Missle Facility incident (Malestrom AFB? ) is.... interesting? Skepticism is healthy. Being a skeptic, by trade, can be as bad as those who believe every claim out there. 

 

There's a very narrow corridor down the middle that's very hard to stay in. 

Have you looked at any of the work by Ross Coulthart? 

 

DB

Edited June 26, 2022 by DaviiB

[martin-w 3,235]

26 minutes ago, DaviiB said:

Have you looked at any of the work by Ross Coulthart? 

 

I have, watched his videos recently. But again he wrote a book, so that's always at the back of my mind. A lot of his stuff I like but he does get details wrong frequently which annoys me.

The Melbourne school incident he covered is the most impresive incident I know of to be honest.

[martin-w 3,235]

30 minutes ago, DaviiB said:

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

unbiased opinion. 

I meant specifically with respect to the the information that is being 'disclosed'  by the government and the story that's being told

Yeah, the three ATFLIR video's were leaked, but they weren't classified or anything like that. I agree with you that they are not impresive on face value, especially if you consider what we discussed above. 

Many do feel that the military are just playing along, giving us uninteresting stuff, pertaining to be doing something, but doing little. The Congresional hearing was a joke, they weren't even aware of the Malestrom incident and similar, or so they claimed. Aparently there are only two people in the "task force". How they intend to do what they claim with two people god knows. 🙄

I suspect they are doing very little. 

[sightseer 895]

10 minutes ago, martin-w said:

How they intend to do what they claim with two people

two people - Mulder and Scully.  maybe the ivestigations are sponsored by some benevolent corporation who, after eight or ten years will enough material to start "Project Blue Book returns"

[DaviiB 104]

57 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

I have, watched his videos recently. But again he wrote a book, so that's always at the back of my mind. A lot of his stuff I like but he does get details wrong frequently which annoys me.

The Melbourne school incident he covered is the most impresive incident I know of to be honest.

I wouldn't worry too much about him writing a book. Here's my reasoning:

If you were an award winning journalist who spent a few years researching a topic (possibly on your own time and dime), and discovered that not only is there alot to the subject, but there has been a massive (likely illegal) cover up..... what would you do with that information? 

1 - Martyr yourself and publish all of your findings online..... where you still probably won't be able to tell the whole story (connective tissue, context etc) 

2 - Put all of your findings into a book, with background, context etc..... then martyr yourself by giving it away for free. 

3 - Write the book, but publish it properly and sell it.... and hopefully get paid back for doing a couple years of work. 

 

On the other stuff, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the unfiltered truth will ever be released unless some massive shift takes place. 

 

So then where do we go for the truth? Or is it (again) up to each of us to decide for ourselves. 

 

DB

Edited June 26, 2022 by DaviiB

[martin-w 3,235]

11 hours ago, DaviiB said:

So then where do we go for the truth? Or is it (again) up to each of us to decide for ourselves.

 

We stand some chance of having something closer to the truth when a number of scientific teams carry out unbiased peer reviewed research and form a consensus. Nothing is perfect and that includes the scientific method, but its an order of magnitude better than biased politicians, secretive military organisations, UFO researchers making money etc.

 

11 hours ago, DaviiB said:

I wouldn't worry too much about him writing a book.

 

I'm not. Its just that its always a factor that must be considered. Coulthart is one of the more palatable UFO researchers, Nick Pope is the other.

 

[sightseer 895]

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

We stand some chance of having something closer to the truth when a number of scientific teams carry out unbiased peer reviewed research and form a consensus. Nothing is perfect and that includes the scientific method, but its an order of magnitude better than biased politicians, secretive military organisations, UFO researchers making money etc.

Can you describe what would be your acceptable scientific review and evidence?  I'm having a very hard time picturing UFOs and/or aliens coming into a science lab to have experiments performed on them so that you can say "yup, all good...checks out: aliens!"  I'm actually really surprised that approach apparently did work for the ghosts/seance thing but it can't really happen with aliens.