You think me and my three sources and the CIA reports are all lies, because?
What evidence do you have other than saying you dont believe the CIA report, or CIA historian, or the NYT... ?
What do they contradict, that the u2 spy plane was not confused as UFO during the years it was invented and tested in America?
I gave you 6 REAL examples of modern day hysteria, and why it can be considered a negative, and all you can do is say "claims and lies more claims and lies!"
The best argument against U2 miss identifications of UFOs between 1950 and 1960 is, what? Aliens?
Im over here like
Area 51: BUILT in the 1950s for testing U2 spy plane
U2 spy plane: secret spy plane never invented or seen before
Sightings: during the 1950s
You must have missed the link or quoted content, the AP article (and quoted content from it) was about revealing that crash test dummies were indeed used and it was NOT a weather balloon 60 years later.
The exact example you use as "the truth" was an admitted lie, it was not a weather balloon, it was a spy balloon.
First of all, the quoted section you provided makes no mention of crash test dummies and says very little about Roswell, citing only the standard conspiracy theory of a recovered crashed saucer:
The other school holds that the Government has come into possession of extraterrestrial craft and beings and is hiding them from the public, partly to avoid causing panic. That view was celebrated last month on the 50th anniversary of an incident in Roswell, N.M., in which conspiracy theorists say a saucer crashed to Earth and was seized by the Government.
How should Roswell have been treated differently back in 1947? Although one guy took it upon himself to use the word saucer, it was quickly corrected to a weather balloon, which is 1/2 right. The other 1/2 was classified. Should there be NO secrets at all in the military?
Should, at the beginning of the Cold War, the DoD come out and said: "What crashed at Roswell was a top-secret spy balloon form Project Mogal that is used to listen for Soviet nuclear testing. Here is how they are built and here is the new plastics and neoprene materials we use. NO flying saucer, just a top secret balloon". Would that have stopped Heven's Gate?
They seemed to have done what was logical at the time:
Air Force declassification officer Lieutenant James McAndrew concluded:
When the civilians and personnel from Roswell AAF 'stumbled' upon the highly classified project and collected the debris, no one at Roswell had a 'need to know' about information concerning MOGUL. This fact, along with the initial mis-identification and subsequent rumors that the 'capture' of a 'flying disc' occurred, ultimately left many people with unanswered questions that have endured to this day.[166]
One could argue that Project Mogal should have been declassified earlier, but to what end. It was a long forgotten and short lived project that only ran from '47-'49 and Roswell was not a thing until the '80s. By the time it was a big deal in the late '80s early '90s, Mogal was declassified.
As for the bodies, I still don't see how the test dummies are part of a cover up. There were NO body stories associated with Roswell for nearly 30 years, so what's to cover up? The body stories were added much later, beginning in the late '70s early '80s.
There were high altitude dummy test conducted in the '50s near Roswell that were kept secret. Advertising that the US is trying to find out what happens to a person ejecting from a high-altitude jet sends the signal abroad that the US was trying to, or had created a very high-altitude jet, like the classified U2:
As jet planes flew higher and faster in the 1950s, the Air Force became increasingly worried about the safety of flight crews who had to eject at high altitude. Tests in Operation High Dive with dummies had shown that a body in free-fall at high altitude would often go into a flat spin at a rate of up to 200 revolutions per minute (about 3.3 revolutions per second). This would be potentially fatal.
Project Excelsior was initiated in 1958 to design a parachute system that would allow a safe, controlled descent after a high-altitude ejection.
As I noted earlier, the government should have just ignored the body stories in there '90s report, but the UFOlogists were framing the debate. The test dummies were not offered as part of a coverup, but as a possible explanation for people claiming to have seen strange bodies near Roswell. Something they confabulated with growing mythos of Roswell that had grown by the '90s.
I suppose one could argue the government should never have any secrets. It'd be nice, but I don't think it's likely.
Get a grip. You (and your excessive punctuation) sound like a full-blown hysteric yourself. Please excuse me for using a well-known quotation with which I thought every educated person would be familiar.
You say "I gave you 6 REAL examples of modern day hysteria", but what you gave was 6 more generalized CLAIMS, not examples.
Not quite. No one disagreed with government misinformation causing harm, but put it into the proper context, implying the need of it, which you completely disregarded.
National Security: From a national security perspective, the UFO phenomenon has sometimes been seen as a distraction or even a potential threat. Unidentified aerial phenomena could represent advanced technology from rival nations. As such, resources need to be dedicated to investigating these sightings to ensure national security.
Not quite. No one disagreed with government misinformation causing harm, but put it into the proper context, implying the need of it, which you completely disregarded.
That is going to cause some hysteria, I am sorry. And we simply deserve better accountability, in my opinion. This is my opinion so you're free to disagree.
dotn quote me because im too lazy to look it up..wasnt the u-2 issue to do with altitude? like "it can't be a plane because planes cant fly that high?" (i might be mixing it up with another plane though.)
i actually find the transparency rather depressing. I mean why are we giving high level clearance to people like Elizondo and Grusch? why are so many of our pilots freaked out by birds or balloons blips on their radar?
I prefer the movie versions of ultra cool pilots and intelligent officers
i actually find the transparency rather depressing. I mean why are we giving high level clearance to people like Elizondo and Grusch? why are so many of our pilots freaked out by birds or balloons blips on their radar?
I prefer the movie versions of ultra cool pilots and intelligent officers
I pasted my own long response to you above regarding this topic which you haven't responded to. The conversation you posted the GPT response was in your conversation with Deirdre. And while I may agree with a lot of what she's saying, there are some points that I'm more interested in discussing and emphasizing than the ones she may be interested in. I don't need to butt into your conversation and rebut all the points GPT made for you because she's more than capable of doing so herself and because the things I'm more interested in discussing are laid out in my own post.
dotn quote me because im too lazy to look it up..wasnt the u-2 issue to do with altitude? like "it can't be a plane because planes cant fly that high?" (i might be mixing it up with another plane though.)
I've read that the silver paint, and its long wingspan contributed to people seeing it, so it was eventually painted black to help disguise it at night, even with the silver paint it would reflect at night.
Could have been just because they were like, "dammit, people keep seeing it, lets paint it black?"
It was also painted dark blue, which I assume was to help it blend in with the day sky, but it didn't remain, so maybe that trick didn't work so well (the jets we want you to look at are painted blue now - The blue angles, so it may not have provided any help at all in that respect, haha).
The mat black paint had some radar reflecting benefits too but iirc that was not until the 70s that it was painted mat black.
I wonder if spy planes today are painted VANTAblack?? That's just an interesting fun question!
OK ufo conspiracy time: Do we only see flares when they test the anti gravity spy planes, because it's painted vantablack and so we only see the lights coming from its power sources?
im thinking by examples, anne means like
1. The hearings that are the topic of this thread
2. Sagaar from Breaking Points freaking out about UFOs to his sizable audience.
3. Did they freak out over the Phoenix lights? (i'm guessing some did)
4. The George ORwell radio show? [edit: which i heard was kinda a myth]
5. The skinwalker ranch show, where grown men and alleged scientists are freaking out over wormholes.
6. all those youtube videos of people going "oh my god! oh my god! what is that!? oh my god!"
??
as far as any UFO cults and suicides youre on your own as i know no examples of those.
@jarlrmai already did, and although I see his post has been taken down, you helpfully quoted the whole thing in your post number 152 (or perhaps it was 154). There are no corroborating facts in there, just you repeating generalizations about mistrust and hysteria, but that is the thing for which we want evidence before we agree with your premises. You need to find specific examples, with names, citations, corroborating reports, etc.
@jarlrmai already did, and although I see his post has been taken down, you helpfully quoted the whole thing in your post number 152 (or perhaps it was 154). There are no corroborating facts in there, just you repeating generalizations about mistrust and hysteria, but that is the thing for which we want evidence before we agree with your premises. You need to find specific examples, with names, citations, corroborating reports, etc.
The response was a generic chat GPT unreviewed copy/paste specifically made to prove a point about how annoying it is when someone uses chat gpt.
And it was really reaching too, suggesting things like for
1. Misinformation and Conspiracy Theories: The fascination with UFOs has led to the spread of numerous conspiracy theories and misinformation. This can lead to mistrust of government and other authorities and can even undermine the public's understanding of science. In some extreme cases, belief in such conspiracy theories can result in illegal activities, such as trespassing on military installations or harassing public officials.
Chat GPT tried to argue that 1. Misinformation is good, because it creates an opportunity to correctly inform people in the future.
My statement is that Misinformation creates conspiracy theory, and conspiracy theory creates dangerous activities.
Lets stop talking about aliens, lets talk about Vaccines. You still think that misinformation is a good tool to help later inform people about vaccines?
What about elections?
In response to these hearings, it's essential we give the public the tools it needs to get actual answers to these questions, for the reasons I am laying out in my statments about how dangerous missinformation is.
I don't see how the Air Force labeling U-2 sightings as weather phenomena has anything to do with UFOs or hysteria.
I don't see how the Air Force telling everyone (including foreign adversaries) about secret spy planes like the U-2 is a good idea. (Of course those adversaries would disagree.)
And I don't see how this is in any way related to the upcoming hearings.
Well, the CIA did not release a report that they said it said they were weather phenomena, it released a report that the airforce had misdirected people into thinking they were UFOs
And I don't see how this is in any way related to the upcoming hearings.
Well, the CIA did not release a report that they said it said they were weather phenomena, it released a report that the airforce had misdirected people into thinking they were UFOs
According to later estimates from CIA officials who worked on the U-2 project and the OXCART (SR-71, or Blackbird) project, over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights (namely the U-2) over the United States. (45) This led the Air Force to make misleading and deceptive statements to the public in order to allay public fears and to protect an extraordinarily sensitive national security project. While perhaps justified, this deception added fuel to the later conspiracy theories and the coverup controversy of the 1970s. The percentage of what the Air Force considered unexplained UFO sightings fell to 5.9 percent in 1955 and to 4 percent in 1956. (46)
My only hope is that Gursch drops some amazing earth shaking info that they been keeping secret for a big reveal.
Some amazing transparency, new open investigations into each and every sighting, including interviews with everyone involved.
Release of hours of new footage for mick west to debunk.
If not that and more of the same, we'll just be back to, "its probably real, they're just keeping it secret", lots of youtubes, arguments, and more cults.
to get things back on track what do you all think we can expect after the hearing is over maybe a book and subsequent tour for mr grusch? and how do you think the spectator article about the sec investigation into ttsa affects things?
Well, the CIA did not release a report that they said it said they were weather phenomena, it released a report that the airforce had misdirected people into thinking they were UFOs
Your claim is this:
• The CIA released a report. (titled "CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90")
• The report mentions sightings of U-2 flights.
• "the airforce had misdirected people into thinking they were UFOs".
For support, you quote this:
According to later estimates from CIA officials who worked on the U-2 project and the OXCART (SR-71, or Blackbird) project, over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights (namely the U-2) over the United States. (45) This led the Air Force to make misleading and deceptive statements to the public in order to allay public fears and to protect an extraordinarily sensitive national security project. While perhaps justified, this deception added fuel to the later conspiracy theories and the coverup controversy of the 1970s. The percentage of what the Air Force considered unexplained UFO sightings fell to 5.9 percent in 1955 and to 4 percent in 1956. (46)
However, this does not support the third part of your claim.
Instead, the report reads:
Air Force BLUE BOOK investigators aware of the secret U-2 flights tried to explain away such sightings by linking them to natural phenomena such as ice crystals and temperature inversions.
Your claim is this:
• The CIA released a report. (titled "CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90")
• The report mentions sightings of U-2 flights.
• "the airforce had misdirected people into thinking they were UFOs".
Instead, the report reads:
Air Force BLUE BOOK investigators aware of the secret U-2 flights tried to explain away such sightings by linking them to natural phenomena such as ice crystals and temperature inversions.
To be absolutely fair, I believe there is no difference between misleading and misdirecting someone in this context, if you mislead someone to believe something is not what it is, you are misdirecting them.
It is a lie.
It's a misdirection.
They couldn't say it was top secret aircraft, so they mislead people to not believe their own eyes, now those people say "the goverment is lying to us, I saw it, here's the proof!"
You get the ufo phenomenon in America today, where nobody believes anything or anyone.
The more truth we uncover about all this, the more normal it all sounds.
The more we mislead people the more outrageous and supernatural the claims become.
Please don't include me in that "nobody", and that goes for some other very talented and well informed people that are on Metabunk as well. When an expert (1) tells me something that's within his field of expertise, and (2, importantly) backs it up with a combination of facts, figures, photos, mathematics, diagrams, and/or testimony, most of us are not so foolish as to disregard his analysis. If you choose not to pay attention to experts and evidence, this is a strange site to be on. I for one find many individuals here from whom I can LEARN.
To be absolutely fair, I believe there is no difference between misleading and misdirecting someone in this context, if you mislead someone to believe something is not what it is, you are misdirecting them.
It is a lie.
It's a misdirection.
They couldn't say it was top secret aircraft, so they mislead people to not believe their own eyes, now those people say "the goverment is lying to us, I saw it, here's the proof!"
You get the ufo phenomenon in America today, where nobody believes anything or anyone.
The more truth we uncover about all this, the more normal it all sounds.
The more we mislead people the more outrageous and supernatural the claims become.
And yet plenty of people on this website who are well aware of the history of misinformation, misdirection, and lies of the American government historically somehow have not fallen into epistemological nihilism without any idea of who or what to believe. Turns out that working on learning a bit of logic, probability theory, and basic scientific methodology helps people avoid falling for stuff like this, generally speaking.
And again. I don't think anyone here is disputing the fact that lies by the government have contributed to conspiratorial thinking in the population, but the dispute here is about how *much* of a role such historical examples of misdirection and lying have led to this level of mistrust compared to other causal factors, as well as a disagreement about what is to be done about it. You seen to be suggesting an extreme view about complete and total transparency, even with regards to highly sensitive military projects that concern national security. Even among advocates of transparency (which I count myself as one), your view is pretty fringe and frankly unworkable and divorced from what is reasonable to implement in the real world.
You seen to be suggesting an extreme view about complete and total transparency, even with regards to highly sensitive military projects that concern national security. Even among advocates of transparency (which I count myself as one), your view is pretty fringe and frankly unworkable and divorced from what is reasonable to implement in the real world.
If you want to ask me about what I believe, send me a DM it is not the topic of the thread for me to go into long explanations of how I think we should handle transparency.
So far I have said I think we need oversight committee with better resources and access to the highest top secret information and materials.
I am arguing for more transparency. I am outraged that a 50 million dollar jet cant film itself shooting a mysterious balloon, then our own goverment is like "we cant find em" that is just silly to me, and if that's the way we're operating, we need better oversight.
But even if my view was fringe, at the very beginning I said it was my opinion, and you're free to disagree.
As for th UFO hearing, to keep it on topic, at best I hope for a release of much, much more footage for Mick to debunk.
I hope the hearing results in better/more footage at least.
It seems abundantly clear that the moment a top secret video get released, mick west is like, "its a bug, here is exactly why"
We obviously need an oversite committee with mick west at the helm.
If you read the report you're quoting from, you'd realize this is not new.
What's new is that this destabilisation of society is actively helped along by Russia:
Article:
This media machine has a second, more sinister, objective. It seeks to not only provide an alternative narrative with a Russian version of events, but also to cause general confusion and question the whole notion of the truth.[31] It provides varying accounts of events, often based in truth, that work to sow discord and confusion.
Actors around the world have begun to use the Russian disinformation toolset to promote their own agendas and narratives.[32] There is a trend of growing distrust in traditional media sources, which leads to a blurring of fact and fiction[33] and offers a platform for populist candidates in many countries to target the free press. This chaos has worked to undermine journalism in these countries.
It's not clear to me what you propose the US government should have done differently. Yet you are blaming it and not those who sow discord and distrust.
Lies by the government have real motivations behind them. Criticism of the lies is often attached to these real, well-known motivations. The lies are plausible.
Conspiracy theorists want to believe. They don't care about actual motivations or even consistency. Their narratives work whether the government lies or not, because they don't really connect to reality, but rather play on people's fears.
If we had a totally honest government, we'd still have the same amount of conspirational thinking. (The destruction of the World Trade Center or the moon landing are good examples.)
UGH how many times do I have to tell you people that that is my opinion there is no value in that and you're free to disagree.
Conspiracy theorists want to believe. They don't care about actual motivations or even consistency. Their narratives work whether the government lies or not, because they don't really connect to reality, but rather play on people's fears.
The problem is your best argument against conspiracy theories is that you're just more woke than they are, because we have no oversight into their claims that a very real plane they saw, was not an ice crystal.
If we were able to have more people say, without a doubt that this stuff isn't real because we stopped dicking around with it and making a joke about it, we could finally move on from this waste of science and time.
If we had a totally honest government, we'd still have the same amount of conspirational thinking. (The destruction of the World Trade Center is a good example.)
If we didnt have the knowledge we had to prove the trade center can collapse as a result of 747s then all of us would be debating it right now instead of UFOs
Nobody that doesn't deeply believe in creationism or flat earth, debates those subjects, becauise they know its a huge waste of time.
We're not having "yet another flat earth thread" or "yet another dinosaurs weren't real" thread.
Because its incredibly easy to prove that they are real.
If we had 100% of alien sightings scientifically reviewed on the level of the WTC or dinosaurs, then we wouldn't be debating this either, and it'd be only something deeply fringe people talk about. Instead of like 90% of science fiction films.
If you want to ask me about what I believe, send me a DM it is not the topic of the thread for me to go into long explanations of how I think we should handle transparency.
So far I have said I think we need oversight committee with better resources and access to the highest top secret information and materials.
I am arguing for more transparency. I am outraged that a 50 million dollar jet cant film itself shooting a mysterious balloon, then our own goverment is like "we cant find em" that is just silly to me, and if that's the way we're operating, we need better oversight.
But even if my view was fringe, at the very beginning I said it was my opinion, and you're free to disagree.
"The us military should not be secretly testing weapons of war, we may disagree on that, but there is nothing you can say to change my mind and nothing I can say to change yours. Which is why both opinions are valid."
That's the view I was referring to as fringe. I'll give you the benefit of acknowledging that what you wrote is ambiguous and could mean one of the following:
1) The military should not be testing weapons of war at all.
2) All weapons of war should be tested publicly and without any secrecy.
Earlier you complained about the fact that the Chinese are reverse engineering US made weapons and that this is a bad thing, so I think it's fair for me to assume that since #2 would only lead to more stealing of technology by the Chinese since obviously it would all now be open, then the view you're advocating for is #1, is that correct?
