DaviiB

I agree with everything you're saying. Ordinary evidence, when scrutinized, should produce repeatable results. If you want to disrupt an established norm, you just need lots of ordinary evidence....If you want to call that extraordinary, then sure. My point was, the term "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" should never be used as a throwaway line to justify a refusal to even "look through the telescope". Dismissing something offhand, without actually looking into it is quite unscientific no? Carl Sagan was one of the greats. I think his words should be used to justify doing more science - i.e. more exploration, more debate, and a broader search for more/extraordinary evidence - than the opposite. To be fair, this topic is becoming more mainstream, the stigma is just starting to recede, and more science is beginning to be done....so there's that. DB

Please define proper research. Don't paint over this with a broad brush. Here is one of the latest (preprint): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394040040_Aligned_multiple-transient_events_in_the_First_Palomar_Sky_Survey This is "proper" research, being conducted and put through traditional channels. It is also only one of many angles into the phenomenon being looked at by real academics. If you don't look, you won't know about it.

So they weren't heavily ridiculed?......and it didn't take 30 years for them to fully be recognized?

My point was that things haven't changed much in the last few hundred years. While a scientist today might not be put under house arrest (and/or have their work burned) for promoting an un-popular theory, quite a few have had their careers destroyed for daring to propose theories and evidence that violated the established narrative. They lose funding and tenure, their works are not published, they face public ridicule and are excommunicated from their peer groups. If you're an academic with no funding, no peer support, and can't publish you work.......is that really much different to what happened to Galileo? Except in this case, it's not the church doing it, but their own peers or "the scientific community". Specifically in the case of the dinosaurs, their claims happened to also spark a large amount of curiosity and debate - which lead to more science being done and eventually, the discovery of the crater in Mexico, now believed to be the impact site. << That's how it's supposed to work. With Clovis, that's not what happened. Scientists' lives and reputations were destroyed after stumbling upon evidence that disrupted the established narrative. In one case, science lead to more science, which lead to a game-changing discovery. In the other case, science lead to a dogmatic backlash which delayed progress and understanding of our own history by decades. Guess which one had more evidence to start with... DB

Let's break this one down. If something exists, it's not really extraordinary. It's just part of this world, or universe. The term extraordinary is (highly) subjective. Evidence is evidence, and should be evaluated on its own merits - albeit thoroughly if it appears to violate well-proven scientific principles. This is a term being thrown around to defend a dogmatic position - specifically the "non-existence" of something on the basis that the wider scientific community doesn't believe it yet....that's it, nothing more. The cognitive dissonance embedded in that statement (or at least how it's typically used) is almost overwhelming. At best it's intellectual laziness, and being used to avoid genuinely engaging with a subject. Even if Carl Sagan himself said it......this is about as un-scientific as it gets. Evidence is evidence. Extraordinary is a test of beliefs and world-view, not facts. DB

Ok, let's be more precise. There are hundreds of thousands of people who claim to have had anomalous experiences (conservatively). If we narrow it down to the small percentage lacking a prosaic explanation, that's still leaves thousands. We're looking at the small percentage of those who fall into the category of being an "authoritative" source. Trained observers, military, intel etc. The point was, the idea of a credible witness is a counterpoint to the long-established stigma that people who claim to have experiences / encounters are crazy....as opposed to sober, right-minded, highly trained individuals (currently or formerly) occupying a position of trust. By similarities I mean multiple people reporting very similar experiences, but who do not know each other, are disconnected geographically and otherwise have no reasonable means of comparing notes - like having corroborating eye-witness reports from multiple people who've never met.

I think you've misread this a bit. There are many thousands of people out there who claim to have had anomalous experiences..... A lot of them similar to this gentleman. (interestingly enough, quite a few similarities among the stories from unrelated witnesses) The journalist's job is to sift through them and present the most credible ones. People who's words should carry some weight. In this case, members of the military, government and intelligence services, or leaders from those organizations. These are not all backcountry farmers with a wild story (as the stigma would have you believe). Physical evidence is a whole other kettle of fish, and is problematic for a long list of reasons. Trying to prove something that contradicts established dogma is nearly impossible, or at least takes a very long time. Just ask Copernicus and Galileo (around 150 years in that case). Galileo's work was burned. .... and if you think that (or its equivalent) doesn't happen in modern times..... ask the guys who first proposed the theory that an asteroid impact wiped out the dinosaurs, or anyone who tried to present evidence that the Clovis people weren't the first culture in North America. In the latter case, physical evidence was ignored simply because it didn't fit the established narrative. DB

I find all the talk (not just here) about what's technologically, theoretically, mathematically, or physically "possible" to be a bit amusing. To think that we are near enough to the limits of understanding of physics or technology to even imply that we know what could be possible is hubris at best, and that's being really generous. The first exoplanets were confirmed in 1992. I remember 1992...wasn't that long ago. We are just barely getting started at this. Let's not pretend like we have any clue of what's possible when it comes to interstellar travel or extraterrestrial (or inter-dimensional) life. While we've made some very quick progress in the last hundred years, we are still operating with a sample size of one (for reference), and a fairly limited context. Saying something is impossible, or improbable because of a certain limit sounds like someone in the 14th century stating that intercontinental travel will always take months, because wind-powered ships can only go so fast. Logically, they would be right, but they don't even have the ability to understand how wrong they actually are. We don't know what we don't know. DB

Courtesy of Perplexity: Prompt: Can you describe some UFO cases where an an explanation or conclusion could not be found, but the evidence is compelling. Several **UFO cases remain unexplained despite compelling evidence**, often involving multiple credible witnesses, physical effects, and official investigations that failed to yield conventional explanations. Here are some of the most notable examples: - **Japanese Airlines Flight 1628 (Anchorage, Alaska, 1986):** - A Japanese Boeing 747 cargo plane was followed for nearly an hour by unidentified objects over Alaska. The crew saw two objects illuminate the cabin and then a much larger disc-shaped craft followed the plane, tracked by ground radar. The incident involved data reviewed by the FBI and CIA, marking the first radar recording of a UFO. No satisfactory explanation was ever provided, and officials denied the meeting ever took place[11]. - **Chicago O'Hare International Airport (2006):** - Close to a dozen United Airlines employees, including pilots and supervisors, witnessed a metallic saucer-shaped craft hovering over the airport. The object shot straight up, leaving a visible hole in the clouds. The FAA initially denied knowledge, but recordings were uncovered via a Freedom of Information Act request. Official explanations such as weather phenomena or airport lights were contradicted by the conditions at the time, and no proper investigation was conducted[11]. - **Alderney UFO Sighting (UK, 2007):** - Captain Ray Bowyer and passengers saw two large, bright, cigar-shaped objects while flying near Alderney. The objects were confirmed on radar and by another pilot. The British Civil Aviation Authority was informed immediately, and numerous ground witnesses corroborated the sighting. The incident remains unexplained despite extensive documentation and official attention[11]. - **The Belgian UFO Wave (1989–1990):** - Thousands of people, including police and military personnel, saw large triangular UFOs. On March 30, 1990, Belgian Air Force F-16s attempted to intercept the objects, which performed maneuvers beyond known aircraft capabilities, including rapid acceleration and altitude changes. The Belgian Air Force admitted it could not identify the phenomena, which remain unexplained to this day[11]. - **Cash-Landrum Incident (Texas, 1980):** - Three people encountered a diamond-shaped object surrounded by helicopters. The craft emitted intense heat, causing physical burns and health effects consistent with radiation exposure, confirmed by medical professionals. Despite a lawsuit and official attention, no explanation was found, and the case remains mysterious[11]. - **Rendlesham Forest Incident (UK, 1980):** - U.S. Air Force personnel at a British base observed a glowing metallic object moving at high speed. Investigators found triangular impressions in the ground and elevated radiation levels at the site. Senior officers accused governments of a cover-up, and the incident is still debated, with no definitive explanation[11]. - **Mexican Military UFO Video (2004):** - Mexican Air Force pilots captured infrared footage of multiple flying objects with no visible means of propulsion. The objects maintained a tight formation, ruling out conventional aircraft or natural phenomena like ball lightning. The incident was verified as authentic by the military, and no credible explanation has been established[9]. These cases are considered **compelling** due to the quality of witnesses (pilots, military, law enforcement), physical evidence (radar, radiation, ground traces), and the inability of official investigations to provide conventional explanations. While none conclusively prove extraterrestrial involvement, they remain among the most **unexplained and well-documented UFO encounters** on record.

How does Grok define "confirmed" and "verifiable"? The devil's in the details. Confirmed by whom? Verified how? I suspect it may involve some sort of scientific concensus, which is hard to define, and almost impossible to obtain for a phenomenon that won't sit still (ie - transient, impossible to predict, and/or slippery) Getting scientific concensus is like Lucy and the football...... you can always move the goal posts if you don't like the conclusions. Maybe ask it about edge cases where an an explanation or conclusion could not be found, but the evidence is compelling. DB

Not sure I follow. The point I was making was about the giant leap forward technologically between 1953 and 1989 (between the F100 and B2).....and the apparently less-than-giant leap forward from 1989 to 2025 (between the B2 and.....B21 maybe??), despite massive parallel advances in technology over the same period...and an unfathomable amount of money spent. One could argue that jet engines and heavier-than-air aircraft can only get "so" advanced (convergence toward maximum efficiency), but my point stands....What has taken flight recently (that we know of) that logically explains the trillions of dollars spent in the last 36 years? i.e. - All that money went somewhere, and it's not unreasonable to think they're sitting on some pretty wild stuff that the public never gets to see, because (in their opinion) it's not in their best interest to release it. DB

I think it's safe to assume that if you can make something accelerate instantaneously, you have managed to overcome the effects of inertia, since they are correlated. Instantaneous 90-degree direction changes at high speed imply the ability to ability to 'ignore' inertia. These objects don't appear to be "moving" propulsively. Calculating G-forces seems unnecessary, and the comparisons that talk about these maneuvers flattening metal (or doing worse to the human body), are just used for effect to drive home the point that the tech is far beyond what we understand conventionally. "Here's what would happen if we tried to do this" - one of Lou Elizondo's regular talking points, comparing the G-limit of the F16 to what these objects have apparently demonstrated. I wouldn't be shocked if they don't experience the effects of inertia at all, and were a pretty comfortable ride from the inside. DB

They're not the ones telling you that... It's also not in their interests to let you know what they have. 1 - They don't really care.....and likely have some sophisticated systems to de-conflict them from other traffic when needed. 2 - It would be unwise to assume that all are US technology.....or that all are man made. There may not be a simple answer to any of this. DB

Jumping in on this one... It is well established that defense contractors can sit on advanced technologies for a very long time before ever making a peep about its existence. They have the infrastructure for it. The B2 stealth bomber first flew 36 years ago (in 1989). 36 years before that (in 1953), the most advanced jet taking flight was the F100 Super Sabre. Today, the B2 is still the tip of the spear that we know of (ish). What are the odds that, since 1989, while all civilian technology has advanced by lightyears, military aircraft technology has NOT? (Several trillion dollars later?) Defense contractors are massive, complex organizations that are spread out geographically, so creating compartments within compartments to hide technology isn't out of the question - even from senior management.....especially when certain parts of the US Government.... DoD, CIA, DIA, NRO, DoE etc. are involved. Let's also look at incentives.....these guys are paid to supply weapons to fight today's conflicts, and to arm various governments around the world to "keep up with the Joneses"....so the step-wise evolution of defense technology is very logical....and highly profitable. Vehicles that can perform like the TicTac has been described would be checkmate-game over technology for anybody who has it. Period. You could win/end any conflict rapidly and definitively....and that's very bad for business. Kind of like nukes, but worse. So....IF Lockheed Martin was sitting on technology like the TicTac: - There is no financial incentive to reveal its existence to the world. (at this time) - Any government agencies in the know would be extremely paranoid about keeping in secret, because if you tell the public, you also tell Russia and China what you have...and they'll know where to look to steal the tech. - LM (and Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics etc.) would have all of the necessary infrastructure to keep its existence well hidden (deniable even) - It would be in their interest to let the public think it's a UFO if it were ever spotted. - It would be in their interest to let the rank-and-file military think it was a UFO if it were spotted...up to and including Generals / Admirals etc. (helps with deniability) - It would likely be seen as a very cool toy that is out of place in the current geopolitical climate. Don't give the primitive apes nukes...they will be mis-used.....and it will break your business model. Until I have my hands on one, it'll be tough to know for sure, but all of the above flows logically. All that's missing is confirmation of a massive leap in propulsion technology.....kindof like all of the work that went into anti-gravity tech in the 40's and 50's - on the level of another nuclear arms race - that suddenly went very quiet, and the fact the the US Government has been actively seizing patents related to new energy and propulsion technology for decades.......🤔 DB

Some interesting rumblings as-of late. The author of the "Immaculate Constellation" document did a 3-part interview with Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp. Some new allegations in there. Again...the implications are bananas if true. Good content coming out of the "Contact in the Desert" event (and its periphery) as well. Ross Coulthart did some digging into weird stuff around Sedona, and a deep-dive interview/podcast with Jesse Michaels. Might be worth a look. DB

That theory has now slid down the list of likely causes. Still on there until conclusively disproven though. It seems more like a loss of thrust in both engines shortly after lift off (for whatever reason). It looks (and sounds) like the Ram Air Turbine was deployed. The list of things that can trigger its deployment is fairly short. DB

That was deliberate 🙃 DB

I'm soured on mainstream media for this reason: I have never seen them get the facts straight, or report accurately on any aviation incident....ever. Aviation is my lane, where I have a little expertise. So if, in the one, narrow area, where I can actually personally verify information, they can't get basic facts straight.....how can I trust them to be accurate anywhere else? Not saying they can't be accurate, but I can't trust their methods anymore. /end rant. DB

I think it's well established that mainstream media is no longer an authoritative source for factual reporting. There are Youtube channels that are far more professional, fact based and less speculative. There is one video which IMO is quite telling. The one where you can - possibly - hear the RAT. It's awfully quiet otherwise. Even one engine at low power would be a lot louder...... gear and flaps be damned. DB

In order to get verified physical evidence, that evidence must be collected by the scientists while documenting the process (so the chain of custody is unbroken). For the process to be documented, the scientists would have to already be trying to collect physical evidence for the purposes of study (which hasn't started in-earnest until recently). Remember, if the scientists weren't there when the evidence appeared, the chain of custody is broken, so you can't prove provenance. Once they have physical evidence that they can prove came from a UAP (and they'll also have to prove the UAP is actually an anomalous object), they can then proceed to study it and report their findings. If truly anomalous findings are reported, other independent analysis will be demanded to ensure the results are repeatable. Those findings, and the methodologies that produced them will have to be definitive enough to pass peer review, or they will be thrown out. In order to be "verified", all of the above needs to happen, otherwise it will be thrown out as inconclusive (at best). The end result is scientific consensus. It also takes a relatively long time. Nothing wrong with the scientific method. It's just difficult to pull off with a phenomenon that doesn't want to sit still. DB

Well.... If you're head to head with traffic that's going to eventually go left, and you're told to pass behind, do you continue straight or veer to the right? Also (this is heavy speculation), if I was 200ft over water at night, my first instinct would be to climb the second I thought it was safe to do so. In this case, once I was granted visual separation and had eyes on other traffic. To your other point... This potentially being an intentional act.... that would be some pretty good flying to nail an intercept on an aircraft in a turn at night. (unless its easier than I think) I say no chance it could have been premeditated, because the CRJ was offered runway 33 at the last minute. If they continued for runway 01 they would have landed before the Blackhawk got there. DB

What if.... The heli crew was expecting the lights they were looking at (the 737) to break off (to the left from the perspective of the Heli crew) and start the circling maneuver for rw33.....and turning right would keep them clear, allowing them to pass behind and continue down the river. Look at the video again and ask yourself, if you were looking at the 737, and not the CRJ, expecting it to circle for rw33, which way would you turn to get behind it? Speculation, but it kinda makes sense. DB

What you're waiting for is scientific consensus (the end-state of irrefutable evidence). That will likely lag behind everything else due to the nature and (lack-of) speed of the scientific process. i.e. scientific concensus will be last to the party. The potential gravity of these revelations means that science should be especially methodical, take its time and demand repeatable phenomena and irrefutable physical evidence. Unfortunately, if the phenomenon represents an intelligence that's at a similar or higher level than we are..... and it's not willing to submit itself for study (show up in person, get prodded, leave a craft in a mall parking lot on live TV etc)..... the civilian scientific method will fail. There won't be enough physical evidence to reach consensus. Also, whatever physical evidence exists likely won't have a solid chain of custody (as you said, people can lie). It also doesn't help that the best sensor systems on the planet are in the hands of groups who are incentivized to NOT turn over any evidence they have to civilian scientists.....and they can lie. So, it might take a while. Until then, we've gone from random civilian experiencers telling stories, to former military personnel telling stories, to former UAP program officials telling stories, to high ranking military officials telling stories, to (now), first-hand military experiencers telling stories and promising better evidence. Let's see where it goes.

Also, here's a decently well-done recreation of what each crew would have seen out the window. Not much else needs to be said other than in the first half of the video, the CRJ looks like it's behind the aircraft on final for rw01 (i.e. in trail) DB

A random question for those who might know: Does requesting (and receiving) "visual separation" absolve the helicopter crew of the obligation to stay within the published heli-route (laterally and vertically)? I'm trying to think of a reason the Blackhawk would have turned right and started climbing. If they never actually saw the CRJ, thought they were asked to pass behind the aircraft on final for rw01, and their ultimate destination was West of the river..... Could they have turned off the published route 'direct destination', thinking they were in the clear? DB