House Oversight Hearing on UAPs - July 26, 2023

JMartJr said:
I'll add, it is pretty standard practice NOT to just trust the medical expert, especially on anything important, but to seek a second opinion in which some other specialist looks at the evidence and renders a judgement. Perhaps MB is the second opinion provider in these cases? :)
Click to expand...
I'll add that the analogy wasn't even good, to start with. The proper analogy would be to trust a cardiologist to give you a neurological diagnosis. Being an expert in flying aircraft and identifying other, already known of aircraft doesn't make you an expert in identifying unknown aircraft, it even may get in the way...
 
jplaza said:
I always have trouble trying to understand the equivalent degrees for different countries... What is "bachelor" equivalent to? a 4 years career at university?
Click to expand...
Yes. Successive American postgraduate degrees are referred to as a Masters degree and a PhD: "Doctor of Philosophy", but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what we currently define as philosophy. The field of study is usually referred to after the degree.

That sometimes leads to people claiming expertise that they do not really have. For example, "Creationism" is a religious position that refers to humans having been created by god, as opposed to evolution. It's frequently seen that people denying the Theory of Evolution use a legitimate doctoral degree and refer to themselves as "Doctor ____", but their doctoral degree is in, say, history or dentistry, not in any field of biology or genetics that would pertain to evolution. They are implying an expertise that they do not have.
 
(derp)
LilWabbit said:
Speculative of course. But plausible imo.
Click to expand...
I would rather there be a line to speculating, that doesn't get crossed. I think this is where such a line should be drawn. He said he wants to be an opinion leader on the subject and that is fair game, but going beyond that is just going to put off people that are trying to make sense of this and look here for help.

Sorry, I quoted you, but I just think this thread is going in a wrong direction and though that line was relevant to my point.
 
beakflip said:
I don't think speculation about

I would rather there be a line to speculating, that doesn't get crossed. I think this is where such a line should be drawn. He said he wants to be an opinion leader on the subject and that is fair game, but going beyond that is just going to put off people that are trying to make sense of this and look here for help.

Sorry, I quoted you, but I just think this thread is going in a wrong direction and though that line was relevant to my point.
Click to expand...

No problem.

But I think psychology is very much an important aspect of all of this as well and shouldn't be dismissed just because it's uncomfortable. However, you're absolutely right about the discussion benefiting from some manner of expertise to evolve beyond dilettante psychoevals. Hence it would be good to hear from experts.
 
reminder This thread is getting long and messy. If you want to discuss a new topic, then please start a new thread!
 
Mendel said:
straw man argument, nobody claims they intentionally lie

@Scaramanga wrote, "we don't have definitive evidence that Fravor's incident ever actually happened", which I'm reading as a statement on how bad the evidence is that we have, not as an accusation.

a radar we know is wonky, because the rapid change in height was a software glitch that connected two spurious returns

if Fravor says his Tictac had no radar signature, then the Nimitz must have "tracked" something else that happened to be in the vicinity.

Who?
Fravor and Dietrich's accounts differ, and Kurth didn't see it at all.

But we don't have radar data backing it up!

There is little disagreement about some object being there. Underwood later went and took the FLIR1 video which might be the same or a similar object (but he was too far to see it himself). The disagreement is about what the object was, how big and how fast it was, and how it moved. And we do not have certainty on any of that.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry I'm out of here. I genuinely thought that there might be a place for discussion but the desperation to debunk as opposed to discuss things is not really for me.
In this thread we've had people suggesting Fravor saw a pod of dolphins feeding, we've had people suggesting what he saw was a balloon and that the movement he saw was parallax.
 
Ann K said:
That sometimes leads to people claiming expertise that they do not really have. For example, "Creationism" is a religious position that refers to humans having been created by god, as opposed to evolution. It's frequently seen that people denying the Theory of Evolution use a legitimate doctoral degree and refer to themselves as "Doctor ____", but their doctoral degree is in, say, history or dentistry, not in any field of biology or genetics that would pertain to evolution. They are implying an expertise that they do not have.
Click to expand...
I heard Stanton Friedman make similar comments about the noted skeptic, Dr. Joe Nickell and his PhD in English. After hearing that, I made a point to listen to him. As many times as I've heard Dr Nickell on various programs, I've never heard him reveal what his doctorate is in. So, that cuts both ways.
 
LilWabbit said:
No problem.

But I think psychology is very much an important aspect of all of this as well and shouldn't be dismissed just because it's uncomfortable. However, you're absolutely right about the discussion benefiting from some manner of expertise to evolve beyond dilettante psychoevals. Hence it would be good to hear from experts.
Click to expand...

I think psychological discussion about the mechanisms behind, say, alien abduction experiences is fair game. It'd be impossible to understand what's going on there without insight from psychology. But analyzing the possible motivations and discussions about a person's possible need to be in the spotlight aren't helpful or useful. And without ever meeting or talking to the person in question, any speculation about them is unhelpful. I see people doing this kind of thing to Mick all the time regarding the one childhood experience he shared regarding the Kelly-Hopkinsville encounter and it's pretty gross. He's constantly accused of being arrogant and having a need to be in the spotlight as well.

Everyone on earth has conscious and unconscious motives for what they do and our life experiences consciously and unconsciously shape our beliefs as well. Sifting through a person's psychological history isn't going to get us any closer to the truth about topics like these.
 
Amathia said:
I think psychological discussion about the mechanisms behind, say, alien abduction experiences is fair game. It'd be impossible to understand what's going on there without insight from psychology. But analyzing the possible motivations and discussions about a person's possible need to be in the spotlight aren't helpful or useful. And without ever meeting or talking to the person in question, any speculation about them is unhelpful. I see people doing this kind of thing to Mick all the time regarding the one childhood experience he shared regarding the Kelly-Hopkinsville encounter and it's pretty gross. He's constantly accused of being arrogant and having a need to be in the spotlight as well.

Everyone on earth has conscious and unconscious motives for what they do and our life experiences consciously and unconsciously shape our beliefs as well. Sifting through a person's psychological history isn't going to get us any closer to the truth about topics like these.
Click to expand...

I agree for the most part. The part where I don't see perfectly eye-to-eye isn't worth a deep dive here on this thread, and maybe not on MB in any case.
 
Mendel said:
@Scaramanga wrote, "we don't have definitive evidence that Fravor's incident ever actually happened", which I'm reading as a statement on how bad the evidence is that we have, not as an accusation.
Click to expand...

Indeed....I'm simply point out that my baseline for all 'events' is did they ever even happen. It's not in any way meant to be derogatory. It is quite simply that if I am going to apply a standard to the Travis Waltons and Whitley Striebers of this world, then I have to be consistent and apply that same standard for everyone and nobody gets a free pass.
 
adam_n_eve said:
I'm sorry I'm out of here. I genuinely thought that there might be a place for discussion but the desperation to debunk as opposed to discuss things is not really for me.
In this thread we've had people suggesting Fravor saw a pod of dolphins feeding, we've had people suggesting what he saw was a balloon and that the movement he saw was parallax.
Click to expand...

The entire purpose of skepticism is to 'suggest' alternative explanations. Some alternative explanations are more way out than others. But bear in mind that the aliens hypothesis is itself an alternative explanation...and is the most way out one of the lot.

Nobody is 'desperate to debunk'. Most people are simply saying ' look...here's a whole bunch of explanations which although they might be implausible are LESS implausible than aliens making it here from Beta Reticuli '. That is how skepticism works.
 
adam_n_eve said:
I'm sorry I'm out of here. I genuinely thought that there might be a place for discussion but the desperation to debunk as opposed to discuss things is not really for me.
In this thread we've had people suggesting Fravor saw a pod of dolphins feeding, we've had people suggesting what he saw was a balloon and that the movement he saw was parallax.
Click to expand...
The purpose of this site (Metabunk) is to remove bunk. It's pretty clearly stated in the About page.

Metabunk.org is dedicated to the art and pastime of honest, polite, scientific investigating of unusual claims. It is primarily a discussion forum, however the focus is on providing concise useful resources, and attempting to avoid repetitive debate and arguments.
Click to expand...
 
no psychoanalyzing
Metabunk is not an appropriate forum for psychoanalyzing. With limited knowledge it's unverifiable speculation and will look like character assassination to outside readers. Please keep such discussion private.
 
deirdre said:
no i didn't. i said a whale. and it's his mucus bubble that broke the surface that Fravor saw. How would a dolphin float up in the air then pop?
Click to expand...
One possible scenario is a group of whales 'bubble-netting'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble-net_feeding
As the group circles a school of small fish such as salmon, krill, or herring, they use a team effort to disorient and corral the fish into a "net" of bubbles.[4] One whale will typically begin to exhale out of their blowhole at the school of fish to begin the process.[4] More whales will then blow bubbles while continuing to circle their prey. The size of the net created can range from three to thirty metres (9.8 to 98.4 ft) in diameter.
Click to expand...
This would create a region of rough water, easily visible from the air. This might even explain the Tic-tac itself; a suitably large seabird might be attracted to the fish in the bubble-net, then fly upwards and away towards Fravor's plane. Not the most likely scenario, but the whole sighting seems incredibly unlikely, aliens or not.

Bubble-netting would be debunked as a possible solution if this activity never happens in that particular region of the ocean.
 
Eburacum said:
One possible scenario is a group of whales 'bubble-netting'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble-net_feeding

This would create a region of rough water, easily visible from the air. This might even explain the Tic-tac itself; a suitably large seabird might be attracted to the fish in the bubble-net, then fly upwards and away towards Fravor's plane. Not the most likely scenario, but the whole sighting seems incredibly unlikely, aliens or not.

Bubble-netting would be debunked as a possible solution if this activity never happens in that particular region of the ocean.
Click to expand...

Humpback whales use bubble-netting and they do occur near Catalina. Here's a video of a pod of seven taken in 2019:


Source: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=505015940342082
 
adam_n_eve said:
I'm sorry I'm out of here. I genuinely thought that there might be a place for discussion but the desperation to debunk as opposed to discuss things is not really for me.
In this thread we've had people suggesting Fravor saw a pod of dolphins feeding, we've had people suggesting what he saw was a balloon and that the movement he saw was parallax.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the people suggesting he saw an extraterrestrial craft!

We know dolphins and balloons and parallax, and that's why we can discuss them.
We don't know UFOs, so we can't.
Sounds reasonable to me?
 
Duke said:
Another opportunity to bet the field if the options are the usual suspects....aliens, time travelers, interdimensional beings, demons, etc.
Click to expand...
I thought the "usual suspects" were balloons, drones, ordinary aircraft, reflections, and astronomical bodies. :)
 
Lu Ann Lewellen said:
No hallucinations or hoaxes?
Click to expand...
Good hoaxes are rare.
"Hallucinations" are more likely encounter/abduction scenes; I get the impression that most UFO sightings are based on people actually seeing something they can't identify and thinking it's a UFO.
 
Eburacum said:
Bubble-netting would be debunked as a possible solution if this activity never happens in that particular region of the ocean.
Click to expand...
Do we think that if "alien visitors" are on the list of proposals, that humpback whales a bit out of place is higher or lower on the likeliness scale?
 
Last edited:
Amathia said:
as being the COO of the Sol Foundation, which was founded by Gary Nolan)
Click to expand...


weird. i looked up sol the other day and didnt find any SOL about ufoy type stuff. But i guess it is
1691020710721.png
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20230726/116282/HHRG-118-GO06-TTF-GruschD-20230726.pdf

1691020931512.png
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20230726/116282/HHRG-118-GO06-Bio-GruschD-20230726.pdf


Gary Nolan 15:49 just talking about starting "SOL", nothing important enough to transcript just confirmation he is involved in a foundation named SOL
"we're calling it the SOL foundation"
Content from External Source

Source: https://youtu.be/e2DqdOw6Uy4?t=949
 
deirdre said:
weird. i looked up sol the other day and didnt find any SOL about ufoy type stuff. But i guess it is
1691020710721.png
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20230726/116282/HHRG-118-GO06-TTF-GruschD-20230726.pdf

1691020931512.png
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20230726/116282/HHRG-118-GO06-Bio-GruschD-20230726.pdf


Gary Nolan 15:49 just talking about starting "SOL", nothing important enough to transcript just confirmation he is involved in a foundation named SOL
"we're calling it the SOL foundation"
Content from External Source

Source: https://youtu.be/e2DqdOw6Uy4?t=949
Click to expand...



From Steven Greenstreet's twitter:


Screenshot_20230802-200752.png
 
deirdre said:
1691020931512.png
Click to expand...
Wouldn't "the premier center" for such things be Princeton? Or MIT? Or Harvard? Or Stanford? Or UCB? Or JHU? Or Cornell? Or Caltech? Or Yale? Or UCLA? Or CMU? Or Duke? Or UIUC?
Just what properties does he think SOL has that makes it more premier than the above?
 
FatPhil said:
Wouldn't "the premier center" for such things be Princeton? Or MIT? Or Harvard? Or Stanford? Or UCB? Or JHU? Or Cornell? Or Caltech? Or Yale? Or UCLA? Or CMU? Or Duke? Or UIUC?
Just what properties does he think SOL has that makes it more premier than the above?
Click to expand...
Marketing. "Premier center for research" has a large number of google hits, though most of these claims limit themselves to specialized, narrow fields, e.g. "premier center for research into woolly mammoths". I guess SOL is the premier center for unspecific research that also does lobbying and public outreach. (Kinda like the tobacco industry, I guess?) Their slogan should be, "we can make them believe anything", they're good at it. (Perhaps even premier.)
 
When going through the transcript of the April 19 2023 senate meeting with Dr. Kirkpatrick, I encountered an interesting remark from an 'audience member' at the end of the meeting:

Article:
Audience Member: “The vehicles tend to be about 10 meters in size and the data that Dr. Kirkpatrick gave about the signatures of one to three gigahertz is the propulsion field interacting with the atmospheric water -- the water in the atmosphere. The higher gigahertz range comes from the effects of the propulsion field reducing the initial mass of the craft so they can do these outstanding maneuvers of [inaudible] degrees or rotating and flying off at hypersonic velocity.
There is knowledge within the weapons industry. More people need to come forward. We need to pull up engineers out of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and allow them the freedom to speak and stop the secrecy. Thank you for hearing me.”


Don't know who that was, but it ties in with Grush' allegations.
 
FatPhil said:
Wouldn't "the premier center" for such things be Princeton? Or MIT? Or Harvard? Or Stanford? Or UCB? Or JHU? Or Cornell? Or Caltech? Or Yale? Or UCLA? Or CMU? Or Duke? Or UIUC?
Just what properties does he think SOL has that makes it more premier than the above?
Click to expand...
As Mendel noted, i think the policy and outreach perhaps sets it apart. Plus SOL is studying all things UFOs, which the others are not. (well..not ALL things UFO, just all things extra or interterrestrial UFO)

To me it sounded like how To the Stars Academy referred to themselves, but since SOL's language is a bit more "advanced" (ie subtle) that makes them 'premiere'. *we even have a fancy start-up who provided a new job to a DOD "leaker"/whistleblower..i dont know what elizondo calls himself so those are my descriptions.
 
deirdre said:
As Mendel noted, i think the policy and outreach perhaps sets it apart. Plus SOL is studying all things UFOs, which the others are not. (well..not ALL things UFO, just all things extra or interterrestrial UFO)
Click to expand...
Is studying?
Plans to study in the future?
Advertises as an aspiration?
Hypes as a selling point?
Exaggerates in the hopes of hiring experts?
Claims to inflate their own significance?

It's a new organization without much of a track record, so perhaps all of the above?
 
Itsme said:
When going through the transcript of the April 19 2023 senate meeting with Dr. Kirkpatrick, I encountered an interesting remark from an 'audience member' at the end of the meeting:

Article:
Audience Member: “The vehicles tend to be about 10 meters in size and the data that Dr. Kirkpatrick gave about the signatures of one to three gigahertz is the propulsion field interacting with the atmospheric water -- the water in the atmosphere. The higher gigahertz range comes from the effects of the propulsion field reducing the initial mass of the craft so they can do these outstanding maneuvers of [inaudible] degrees or rotating and flying off at hypersonic velocity.
There is knowledge within the weapons industry. More people need to come forward. We need to pull up engineers out of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and allow them the freedom to speak and stop the secrecy. Thank you for hearing me.”


Don't know who that was, but it ties in with Grush' allegations.
Click to expand...
That sounds like gibberish rather than interesting. Propulsion field? Reducing mass? What need is there for weapon industry to come forward, he's pretty much impling he already has the knowledge he's asking for if he/she can make those kind of statements...
 
beakflip said:
That sounds like gibberish rather than interesting. Propulsion field? Reducing mass? What need is there for weapon industry to come forward, he's pretty much impling he already has the knowledge he's asking for if he/she can make those kind of statements...
Click to expand...
Yes, he does. Maybe someone with inside kmowledge? Which is why he said 'more' people need to come forward. This was two months before Grush came forward, so the 'more' did not refer to Grush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NorCal Dave
Claim: Representative Anna Paulina Luna has seen UAP photos of Technology the US Doesn't Have.
2
Replies
59
Views
8K
Greene
Greene
Mick West
Statement by AARO Head Sean Kirkpatrick on the HOC UAP Hearing
2 3 4
Replies
127
Views
18K
Don Kielty
D
MonkeeSage
Comments from Senator Gillibrand on HOC hearing and AARO
Replies
20
Views
2K
Mendel
Mendel
NorCal Dave
The Congressional UAP Hearings Debrief
2 3
Replies
102
Views
12K
John J.
John J.
DavidB66
Dr Phil Metzger's Take on the Nimitz Incident (Post UAP Hearing)
Replies
13
Views
2K
Mendel
Mendel

Latest posts

Back
Top