13 hours ago, FBW737 said:

Well now that I have actually wasted my time watching some of this video I take back my initial Occam's razor observation. The most likely explanation is that the 30 and 40 somethings making these video's live in their mom's basement.

 

Chris Lehto is a retired F16 pilot. One of the other guys is an author and former F18 pilot who's relating an encounter he had. So no, I don't think they live in anyone's basement. It has to be considered, though, that UFO investigators earn a living researching this stuff and writing books, so bias is a consideration. 

14 hours ago, dmwalker said:

The reason aliens hesitate to make more extensive contact is because they chose to probe the worst possible orifice and became discouraged. If they had chosen any other orifice, we would probably have had full contact and diplomatic relations by now.

Well, that's likely true, but for now ...

 

 

 

 

 

😂

11 hours ago, Mike A said:

16 hours ago, FBW737 said:

The most likely explanation is that the 30 and 40 somethings making these video's live in their mom's basement.

https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/california-brothers-aviation-sensation-sfo-18369412.php

L.A Flights is the best livestream plane spotting channel I have come across, as opposed to Big Jet TV which has the most annoying commentary.

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

I would regard, humankind, suddenly making a huge leap in technological capability, to the point where we have Star Trek style, physics defying, inertial dampening, as just as limited in terms of probability, as being visited by an alien species probes. 

In terms of backward time travel and the possible paradoxes that might entail, I'd say that's even more improbable.

And that's the problem, if we assume that these reports of physics defying maneuvers are correct, then none of the possible explanations seem probable. 

Well if Brian Cox say's so!

Edited January 4, 20242 yr by FBW737

1 hour ago, FBW737 said:

Well if Brian Cox say's so!

 

 🙄 

Oh, I see! I dealing with a bunch of anoraks here!🤣

Why not have a sensible conversation, or peruse a different topic? I'm not sure why you are commenting if you don't like the subject matter.

Edited January 4, 20242 yr by martin-w

7 hours ago, martin-w said:

Which incident do you mean?

The Tanker “incident”. I’m not really into UFOs so I can’t say anything about Chris Lehto. What I can say is that I occasionally watch LA Flights streams because of their enthusiasm for plane spotting & that they come up here once in awhile to cover KSFO at the same location where my wife & I have plane spotted for years. Also, I happened to be watching live when they picked up the tanker refueling the jets. When they said “Do you want to keep seeing this?” they were referring to tracking the tanker as opposed to focusing on the planes coming & going at KLAX. The very slow motion replay of the object shows it passing under the tanker. This leads me to think that since the camera was focused on the tanker, the object was at a much lower altitude and smaller as it was blurred from being out of focus.

1 hour ago, Mike A said:

This leads me to think that since the camera was focused on the tanker, the object was at a much lower altitude and smaller as it was blurred from being out of focus.

 

Yep, most likely explanation is a baloon.

No idea what the F18 object was though. Unless the wingman was in error somehow and it didn't turn and follow the jet. As always with this stuff it's "what someone said" and no proper evidence

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

As always with this stuff it's "what someone said" and no proper evidence

This.

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

Why not have a sensible conversation, or peruse a different topic? I'm not sure why you are commenting if you don't like the subject matter.

I love the subject matter as an object of ridicule!😁

8 hours ago, martin-w said:

As always with this stuff it's "what someone said" and no proper evidence

What someone said is proper evidence. It's the best kind of evidence. If you see something with your own eye's you don't need any evidence. We are considering here those thing which eye has not seen and asked to give intellectual assent to it. Rational people are always going to give intellectual assent to a blurry object seen in grainy video to be a balloon rather than an interstellar space craft from over 100 light years away paying us a visit. If I didn't see the video and the person who saw it told me it was the latter rather than the former I would have to rely on their testimony. That's evidence. All that's left for me to do is decide whether they're a credible witness or not. Just to be sure I might check with the local mental hospital to see if the person was known to them. But I probably wouldn't waste my time and just use my judgment to determine for myself the person was certifiable. This all stems from a deep desire people have to believe we are not alone. It is wishful thinking par-excellence. This is why the whole alien thing is such a salient motif in the zeitgeist. So much so we contemplate whether the balloons are here to save us. It has all the hallmarks of a religion and its hilarious.

Edited January 5, 20242 yr by FBW737

8 hours ago, FBW737 said:

What someone said is proper evidence. It's the best kind of evidence. 

 

Obviously it's not.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

If "what someone said" is the best form of evidence then the myriad of claims of alien contact and numerous stored flying saucers at Area 51, along with thousands of bizarre claims would likely be true and you would be a UFO and alien visitation  believer. 

People misidentify, and often tell fibs for all manner of reasons. 

Even experienced, genuine, pilots get it wrong. For example the claimed rotation of the "gimble" ATFLIR video, which has been shown to be an artifact of the pods de-rotation mechanism. Then we have the Navy personel that thought a UFO dropped into the ocean, when in reality it fell below the horizon. Then we have the triangular UFO that was claimed to be an alien pyramid craft, when in reality it was an out of focus aircraft that took on the shape of the lens aperture.

So NO science, which is the best tool we have to figure out the truth, needs more than.... Bob said he saw an alien mothership.

Edited January 5, 20242 yr by martin-w

9 hours ago, FBW737 said:

Rational people are always going to give intellectual assent to a blurry object seen in grainy video to be a balloon rather than an interstellar space craft from over 100 light years away paying us a visit.

 

Of course they are, because its the most likely explanation. A sensible person isn't definitive but they consider probability. 

 

9 hours ago, FBW737 said:

If I didn't see the video and the person who saw it told me it was the latter rather than the former I would have to rely on their testimony. That's evidence. All that's left for me to do is decide whether they're a credible witness or not. Just to be sure I might check with the local mental hospital to see if the person was known to them. But I probably wouldn't waste my time and just use my judgment to determine for myself the person was certifiable

 

No you wouldn't have to rely on their testimony, you would remain impartial until you garnered more evidence. Yes, it could be defined as evidence but its the weakest, most unreliable form of evidence. And no, you deciding if they are a credible witness means nothing, you aren't psychic. And your "judgment" isn't definitive, its your opinion, which could well be wrong.

 

9 hours ago, FBW737 said:

All that's left for me to do is decide whether they're a credible witness or not.

 

Of course is not "all that's left for you to do". There are countless reports by credible, reliable, mentally stable people of extraordinary things that are claimed to be alien visitation... What's "left to do" is to determine if what they saw was really what they claim, and that means gathering better evidence than "I think it was an alien craft".  

 

 

9 hours ago, FBW737 said:

This all stems from a deep desire people have to believe we are not alone. It is wishful thinking par-excellence. This is why the whole alien thing is such a salient motif in the zeitgeist. So much so we contemplate whether the balloons are here to save us. It has all the hallmarks of a religion and its hilarious.

 

And yet you claim eye witness testimony is the best form of evidence and that if you didn't suspect they were "certifiable" then you would "have to rely on their evidence". 🙄

9 hours ago, FBW737 said:

I love the subject matter as an object of ridicule!😁

 

Which adds nothing to our conversation here on Avsim and is just an annoyance.