November 13 2024 Congress hearings

[Eburacum]

The Daily Mail has this to say;
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14060875/congress-secret-ufo-research-hearings.html

US Congress has promised to 'pull back the curtain' on secret UAP research programs conducted in the shadows of the government in a court of law.
A second slew of hearings into UFOs is scheduled for November 13, led by the House Oversight Committee, with former military officials and an aerospace expert set to testify about their knowledge of secret US programs.
Lawmakers have promised 'to explore firsthand accounts of [UFOs]' and 'assess the federal government's transparency and accountability regarding their 'possible threats to national security.'
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), a member of the subcommittee, said: 'The Pentagon and Washington bureaucrats have kept this information hidden for decades, and we're finally going to shed some light on it.
'We're bringing in credible witnesses who can provide public testimony because the American people deserve the truth. We're done with the cover-ups.'
There will be four witnesses set to testify under oath, including former Department of Defense Official Luis Elizondo and former NASA Associate Administrator Michael Gold.

So; Elizondo, Shellenberger, Burchett, and Michael Gold of NASA.

Three of these witnesses and their tales of intrigue are familiar on this forum, but what might Michael Gold bring to the table? He was involved with the NASA Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Independent study, but the results from that were somewhat anodyne.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Independent_Study_Team

Gold is a former NASA Associate Administrator, and has worked closely with Bigelow, which is slightly concerning, but a lot of people are in that boat...
https://www.planetary.org/profiles/mike-gold

 

[Mendel]

So;Elizondo, Shellenberger, Burchett, and Michael Gold of NASA

Burchett is a politician, not a witness.

The fourth witness:

Admiral Tim Gallaudet confirms that he's testifying on November 13th

With these witnesses, we are not going to see "firsthand accounts of UFOs". Unless Louis Elizondo has been abducted in the meantime.

 

[JMartJr]

Good thing there are not any more serious and pressing issues with which Congress could be grappling...

(Given that sarcasm does not always communicate well on the Internet: that was sarcasm, with the dial turned up to 11.)

 

[BoulderRiver]

I do think there should be some research done on the anecdotal evidence provided by the pilots, regardless of outcome. The official "Go Fast" and the "Triangular" dones have been debunked, but there's still some reliable witness testimony correlated by radar and FLIR image of Tic-Tac encounter.

That being said.......................

 

[Mendel]

there's still some reliable witness testimony correlated by radar and FLIR image of Tic-Tac encounter.

Where?

 

[Ben Harris]

Elizondo testifying? How can this be taken seriously? It's a farce.

 

[Eburacum]

...but there's still some reliable witness testimony correlated by radar and FLIR image of Tic-Tac encounter.

Trouble is, the radar records were not kept, and the FLIR video was taken by another plane in a different location at a different time, so the correlations you mention are dubious.

 

[Mendel]

Trouble is, the radar records were not kept, and the FLIR video was taken by another plane in a different location at a different time, so the correlations you mention are dubious.

which part of that is 'reliable'?

 

[BoulderRiver]

which part of that is 'reliable'?

My definition of reliable is certainly softer than yours, to your credit. I'm not referring to this as scientific validation but as intelligence information - 4 reputable airmen scout "something" initially spotted by radar. If what they are testifying is true -and we have seen no reason to doubt their allegations so far-, this is something that could benefit from more investigation.

Mick West once provided a hypothesis for the tictac as being a reflection of something on the cockpit - which would be possible if only one witness saw it, but it appears that all 4 pilots' recollections of events are the same, making this prosaic explanation impossible.

Trouble is, the radar records were not kept, and the FLIR video was taken by another plane in a different location at a different time, so the correlations you mention are dubious.

I can't speak for the radar data - even if It was available, I do not have the tech know-how to interpret them correctly; so I'm currently speaking on borrowed honor from the testimonies given by Dave Fravor and Alex Dietrich - two of the pilots. Fravor's testimony states that the object they were seeing was seen on radar at their mission's "cap point" a few seconds/minutes after it flew away. The second mission with the FLIR pod went to the "cap point" and filmed the object. Stating that it's the same object is a jump-to conclusion on my part of the deal. We can't know for sure, and logic states that it isn't. But logic would also state that all of this is fake, which is the comfiest pill to swallow. But these airmen won't budge, background check makes them as credible as one could be, etc.

Fun addendum: Alex was interviewed twice by Mick West on his podcast.

 

[JMartJr]

If what they are testifying is true -and we have seen no reason to doubt their allegations so far-

Other than they are testifying to things that are in violation of physics, especially if the reports about what was seen on the radar are taken into account. That is NOT to say they are lying (though sometimes people make up UFO stories), they could just be mistaken -- they are humans, humans make errors in observation and have memories that are fallible. Or, to be fair, their story could exactly describe what the object they say that they saw was doing. If you have a reliable way to be sure which it is, I'd sincerely love to hear it, but I don't think a way to do that exists.

, this is something that could benefit from more investigation.

It could if there was anything else to investigate -- the only data to look into is the video of the second encounter, which shows a distant target that does not do anything, and the testimony of the pilots which has the problems already noted. What further investigation is possible?

The second mission with the FLIR pod went to the "cap point" and filmed the object. Stating that it's the same object is a jump-to conclusion on my part of the deal. We can't know for sure, and logic states that it isn't.

Then lets go with the most likely conclusion, that it isn't. Why jump to a contrary conclusion? (Or maybe better, we don't know if it is or isn't and no firm conclusion is possibe.)

But these airmen won't budge, background check makes them as credible as one could be, etc.

Credible people make mistakes and have the same pliable memories that the rest of us have. Some of them make up stories, even. That's why (in my opinion, your mileage may vary) cases where all we have are testimony of witnesses are not worth much, if anything. In this case, we have reports of what the witnesses in the planes say they saw, and we have testimony of what may have been seen on radar, and that's all unless it can be established that the Flir1/Nimitz Tic Tac video shows the same object, which it can't due to lack of evidence, and even if we could the video doesn't show it DOING anything. It makes for an interesting and exciting story, but there is nothing to get your teeth into, analysis-wise. It's all like trying to grapple with fog.

The video, and the other Navy videos usually lumped with this one (and often confused with it), don't show anything unusual happening -- Flir1 shows a target in the distance that just flies along at a steady speed, Go Fast is going slowly along at about wind speed, Gimbal shows a camera artifact covering a hot ir target that appears to rotate but only when the gimbal camera rig rotates, the Pyramid Drones/UFOs are what appears to be an airplane, by the flashing light, and a handful of identifiable stars made to look like triangles due to bokeh caused by equipment with a triangular aperture... The amazing stuff the UFOs do that defies explanation is solely in the stories witnesses tell and never seems to be on the video, for some reason.

To circle back to the topic of Congressional hearings, the danger of believing that all this nothing adds up to some big important something is that time and energy will be wasted in Congress while people are led to believe things that are not true -- a bad habit for people to get into -- at the least, and wasted resources and funding that migt have been used for something real and important in a worse case.

CAVEAT -- all that goes out the window if there is ever good evidence of a UFO being something unknown to science. It might, who knows? All I do know about that is the claim that such evidence was coming Real Soon Now has been repeated as long as I've been old enough to pay attention. I am getting old(ish) now, so I've been watching this play out for about 50 years, and have read up on how it was the same for decades before I was watching. Since I'd like to see good evidence that we re not alone, or even have some aliens show up and give us a message of universal peace and brotherhood and all, I'll continue to pay attention and have some faint hope. Hope is free. But at this point, I ain't counting on it! And I'll applaud debunking poor evidence, mistakes, hoaxes, etc. -- if there is anything hiding in all the noise, clinging to garbage data does not help find it, it would just make it impossible to ever find.

(Not tellign you what to think, just what I think, your mileage may vary, etc.)

 

[BoulderRiver]

Other than they are testifying to things that are in violation of physics, especially if the reports about what was seen on the radar are taken into account. That is NOT to say they are lying (though sometimes people make up UFO stories), they could just be mistaken -- they are humans, humans make errors in observation and have memories that are fallible. Or, to be fair, their story could exactly describe what the object they say that they saw was doing. If you have a reliable way to be sure which it is, I'd sincerely love to hear it, but I don't think a way to do that exists.

I'm in the strangest place where I agree with you, but I also believe we should not disregard their word. I solemnly believe this is a case for "Trust, but verify."

For instance: Yes, the object is in clear violation of physics, as we understand it now. Our comprehension of reality isn't static, as a species we have been wrong before. History has many examples of the scientific consensus being shifted when new evidence was put forward; but for that to be a truth, there has to be someone that either doubts that consensus or finds some sort of oddity in the data. Mendel and Semmelweis come to mind.

The testimonies of this case could be untruthful, could be a bundle of nothing like lens flares and radar interference, could be a new natural phenomenon, new secret aircraft, little green men, etc. Right now, I have no reason to distrust their testimonies, and I'm sure it did them more harm than good.

It could if there was anything else to investigate -- the only data to look into is the video of the second encounter, which shows a distant target that does not do anything, and the testimony of the pilots which has the problems already noted. What further investigation is possible?

I used the wrong term in my initial post here - there's indeed little or nothing to investigate on the original USS Nimitz Case. What I meant is that acknowledging the event as something to be considered, something worthy of reflection and preparation, might be beneficial. Believing that the pilots saw and "interacted" with something that we collectively cannot explain, that it was corroborated by radar data, maybe filmed on FLIR, that it was not an optical illusion or any sort of misidentification shared by the individuals who saw the same occurrence from different points of view, etc"

If it happened before, how could we understand it better the next time it happens? Surely it won't happen just once.
Which types of sensors should Recon have? What kind of training the pilots should have? What kind of intel should RadarCon relay? etc

Credible people make mistakes and have the same pliable memories that the rest of us have. Some of them make up stories, even. That's why (in my opinion, your mileage may vary) cases where all we have are testimony of witnesses are not worth much, if anything. In this case, we have reports of what the witnesses in the planes say they saw, and we have testimony of what may have been seen on radar, and that's all unless it can be established that the Flir1/Nimitz Tic Tac video shows the same object, which it can't due to lack of evidence, and even if we could the video doesn't show it DOING anything. It makes for an interesting and exciting story, but there is nothing to get your teeth into, analysis-wise. It's all like trying to grapple with fog.

I 100% agree with you.
What I'm doing is looking at the context from a different angle - If what the witnesses say is true and there's a real possibility that what they experienced is truthful, shouldn't these matters be taken more seriously? We do not have the material to give a real analysis of this case, but is this the only time this happened?

If there's a 10% chance these pilots and radar operators were right and there are things like these descending from space and flying around, shouldn't we be more concerned and put a real effort into being prepared to study or understand them, if similar events ever happen again? If an adversarial country achieved this sort of tech in secret, what does it mean for the DoD?

The video, and the other Navy videos usually lumped with this one (and often confused with it), don't show anything unusual happening -- Flir1 shows a target in the distance that just flies along at a steady speed, Go Fast is going slowly along at about wind speed, Gimbal shows a camera artifact covering a hot ir target that appears to rotate but only when the gimbal camera rig rotates, the Pyramid Drones/UFOs are what appears to be an airplane, by the flashing light, and a handful of identifiable stars made to look like triangles due to bokeh caused by equipment with a triangular aperture... The amazing stuff the UFOs do that defies explanation is solely in the stories witnesses tell and never seems to be on the video, for some reason.

I once again, agree completely. Most videos without context are not amusing, as most media without context are. If we could take the James Webb first capture and bring it to Hipparchus of Nicaea on 130BC or Galileo, both could confuse it with a dirty parchment. The videos by themselves have yet to show something truly remarkable as the pilots claim.

To circle back to the topic of Congressional hearings, the danger of believing that all this nothing adds up to some big important something is that time and energy will be wasted in Congress while people are led to believe things that are not true -- a bad habit for people to get into -- at the least, and wasted resources and funding that migt have been used for something real and important in a worse case.

I think almost all of this stuff is bullshit. I think many tangible problems would benefit the world better instead of this. However, if there's a faint chance this is real, I think it justifies a humble* investment of a concentrated effort to investigate. Avi Loeb's effort is alright - private money, private institution, good tech... is it a bad investment? Absolutely, there are no guarantees and it's absurd to expect it to be fruitful.

CAVEAT -- all that goes out the window if there is ever good evidence of a UFO being something unknown to science. It might, who knows? All I do know about that is the claim that such evidence was coming Real Soon Now has been repeated as long as I've been old enough to pay attention. I am getting old(ish) now, so I've been watching this play out for about 50 years, and have read up on how it was the same for decades before I was watching. Since I'd like to see good evidence that we re not alone, or even have some aliens show up and give us a message of universal peace and brotherhood and all, I'll continue to pay attention and have some faint hope. Hope is free. But at this point, I ain't counting on it! And I'll applaud debunking poor evidence, mistakes, hoaxes, etc. -- if there is anything hiding in all the noise, clinging to garbage data does not help find it, it would just make it impossible to ever find.

(Not tellign you what to think, just what I think, your mileage may vary, etc.)

I agree and I feel the weight of your words.
There was never any tangible evidence, and Ufology is inches away from becoming Disclosure Real Soon Inc.

 

[Eburacum]

I can't speak for the radar data - even if It was available, I do not have the tech know-how to interpret them correctly; so I'm currently speaking on borrowed honor from the testimonies given by Dave Fravor and Alex Dietrich - two of the pilots. Fravor's testimony states that the object they were seeing was seen on radar at their mission's "cap point" a few seconds/minutes after it flew away.

This is Fravor's recollection, certainly. However he is reporting the radar data at second hand, and from memory - two stages in the evidential process where mistakes can be made. This is not really good enough evidence to make good conclusions - the memories of each witness could be affected by hearsay, post-hoc discussion and conflation. To make a good analysis of the radar data we would need to actually see it - perhaps AARO will ensure that all such radar data is kept in future.

 

[Mendel]

My definition of reliable is certainly softer than yours, to your credit. I'm not referring to this as scientific validation but as intelligence information - 4 reputable airmen scout "something" initially spotted by radar. If what they are testifying is true -and we have seen no reason to doubt their allegations so far-, this is something that could benefit from more investigation.

There are 5 different accounts of what it was, and no identification.
I can't imagine witness accounts that are less reliable, under the circumstances. And the video does not corroborate the statements, as it does not show sudden acceleration.

 

[Mendel]

Mick West once provided a hypothesis for the tictac as being a reflection of something on the cockpit - which would be possible if only one witness saw it, but it appears that all 4 pilots' recollections of events are the same, making this prosaic explanation impossible.

seriously?
1 hypothesis is unlikely, therefore all others are?

are you aware the witnesses sat in identical aircraft, so it's possible they had dimilar reflections?

 

[Mendel]

I solemnly believe this is a case for "Trust, but verify."

Which of the testimonies do you trust?

And how would you verify, given the lack of data and the time that has passed? You can't. Nobody can.

 

[Mendel]

perhaps AARO will ensure that all such radar data is kept in future.

they are on the record as saying these procedures are in place

 

[Ann K]

Elizondo testifying? How can this be taken seriously? It's a farce.

The "hearings" are a farce, so it hardly matters. Tim Burchett wants to be noticed, wants to be seen to do something, anything that won't actually accomplish any of the things that a government should be doing. I predict <**consults crystal ball**> that nothing will come of this dog and pony show, but it will still be cited breathlessly by believers as "Look, the government is taking it seriously!!1!!", followed by "What are they NOT telling us???". Followed, as usual, by invented conspiracies...

 

[Jack Mallory]

The Daily Mail has this to say;
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14060875/congress-secret-ufo-research-hearings.html

US Congress has promised to 'pull back the curtain' on secret UAP research programs conducted in the shadows of the government in a court of law.

That is a bizarrely-misinformed take from The Daily Mail. What "court of law" do they think they're referring to? A Congressional hearing is not a court of law, even if the witnesses are sworn in. And from I understand, it was the witness side of things (with Knapp and Corbell pushing the issue) that insisted on being sworn-in last time. It was not a Congressional mandate. Do we even know if they'll be swearing in "witnesses" this time? Even if so, we all know that nothing is going to come of this.

For one, if Elizondo had anything even remotely ground-breaking to share (that he felt at liberty to talk about in public), I'm certain it would've come up in one of the dozens upon dozens of podcasts and cable news shows he's appeared on in the wake of his recent book release.

Secondly, Shellenberger has already been firm in protecting his "sources", so he's not going to be revealing anything that he hasn't already touched on himself.

Thirdly, we already know where Gallaudet stands on the issue: He has no firsthand evidence of any government programs, and his own family is quite open about their embrace of the woo-factor and the paranormal.

Lastly is Mike Gold, who is less known to most people who follow the topic, but who I've yet to be impressed by in any previous press conferences (on different topics) that he's been a part of. Perhaps he'll have to new tales to share, and that might prove to be entertaining. But the ground beneath our feet will not be shifting as a result.

This is more about: "We, the few Congressional members who are pursuing this topic, want to get an official record of all the chit-chat that's currently circulating through the veins of independent media."

This hearing is not designed, nor empowered, to elicit any truly meaningful new information. And it won't.

 

[JMartJr]

Perhaps he'll have to new tales to share, and that might prove to be entertaining. But the ground beneath our feet will not be shifting as a result.

Which might at least be of benefit to MetaBunk, as there is some chance that more videos/pics of the Flir1/Gimbal/GoFast variety will become public, giving us something new to work with!

The release of new videos and the like will not likely be of net benefit to the public, as I suspect it will just help spread the "it looks odd to me, therefor ALIENS!" mindset cultivated by the UFO industry (as we have seen, the earlier Navy videos continue to be "Exhibits A" by UFO promoters* long after it has been demonstrated that they do not show what they were hyped as showing.)


*I have started referring to them as "Big UFO" in private conversations, by analogy to "Big Tobacco" or "Big Oil" and the like. The addition of "Big" has somehow become shorthand for "bad," and using it helps point out that this, too, is a money making enterprise whose motives should be looked at skeptically. With the substantial entertainment industry that has grown up around the topic (and other woo) in recent years, the publication of books and the penetration into government, "Big" is becoming and appropriate label. I resist the use of Big Big Foot, however, as sounding silly.

 

[Jack Mallory]

*I have started referring to them as "Big UFO" in private conversations, by analogy to "Big Tobacco" or "Big Oil" and the like. The addition of "Big" has somehow become shorthand for "bad," and using it helps point out that this, too, is a money making enterprise whose motives should be looked at skeptically. With the substantial entertainment industry that has grown up around the topic (and other woo) in recent years, the publication of books and the penetration into government, "Big" is becoming and appropriate label. I resist the use of Big Big Foot, however, as sounding silly.

"BUFO" it is. Come to think of it, that label might even work for both those topics. Or maybe "BIFO"?

 

[Mendel]

"BUFO" it is. Come to think of it, that label might even work for both those topics. Or maybe "BIFO"?

You know, when Grusch referred to "non-human intelligence", maybe he was onto something?
<insert still image of a big hairy humanoid piloting a spaceship>

 

[Ben Harris]

We have seen this decade in and decade out. Over and over. Here's my sarcastic summary...

The UFO CIRCUS....
https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2024/05/ufos-the-unidentified-flying-circus-comes-to-town/

 

[BoulderRiver]

This is Fravor's recollection, certainly. However he is reporting the radar data at second hand, and from memory - two stages in the evidential process where mistakes can be made. This is not really good enough evidence to make good conclusions - the memories of each witness could be affected by hearsay, post-hoc discussion and conflation. To make a good analysis of the radar data we would need to actually see it - perhaps AARO will ensure that all such radar data is kept in future.

Absolutely, and let's not forget how much noise and bias can creep into witness testimonies regardless of their amount of training.

Like I've said before, we've got almost nothing to lose by treating this specific event seriously and developing a systematic approach to register and investigate possible future encounters like this, but ignoring the possibility of an advanced craft that could outmaneuver next-gen fighters could lead to a catastrophic blind spot.

It's not a conclusion, I'm not advocating for anything else other than precaution.

There are 5 different accounts of what it was, and no identification.
I can't imagine witness accounts that are less reliable, under the circumstances. And the video does not corroborate the statements, as it does not show sudden acceleration.

The pilots' accounts hold steady across their interviews and written reports, showing credible consistency. The video footage, captured by a separate group that flew right after the first, went to where the radar operator allegedly reported that the same object reappeared. They filmed the stationary shining shape—no rotors, no exhaust, and no sign of advanced aerodynamics; just an Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon.

seriously?
1 hypothesis is unlikely, therefore all others are?

Never said or insinuated that.

Are you aware the witnesses sat in identical aircraft, so it's possible they had dimilar reflections?

Yes, and their flight pattern and position make it impossible for it to be. Fravo descended to engage in a downward spiral while Dietrich remained above as his hawkeye. Fravor and Dietrich state that the tic-tac stopped its "zipping around like a fly" and engaged in the dogfight in a mirrored upwards spiral, like this; before accelerating at unmatchable speed.

Given the testimonies and the position of the Hornets, it's highly unlikely for it to be a reflection on the canopy.

Which of the testimonies do you trust?
And how would you verify, given the lack of data and the time that has passed? You can't. Nobody can.

I'm saying "trust, but verify" The pilot's testimonies. Originally popularized by Ronald Reagan in the context of arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union, the phrase emphasizes a pragmatic approach to trust—one that acknowledges the value of good faith but also recognizes human fallibility and the complexities of relationships, especially in high-stakes situations. By verifying, you create accountability without undercutting trust. I've seen no reason so far to distrust these pilots, so I doubt they would be lying about this.

Sure, mistakes happen—but in this case, what are the odds? A radar plot tracked for two weeks suddenly is investigated and turns out to be a visible, tangible, reactive engagement witnessed by four people, displaying extraordinary aerodynamics with unparalleled acceleration, reappearing on radar and captured on FLIR? That's a lot of "coincidences" lining up. Either every one of these individuals is lying outright, or there's someone with a pretty neat machine flying around.

We may not have all the data to verify this event right now, but we can at least push for systems that make it easier to capture reliable evidence next time. There should be a systematic approach for reporting, recording, and relaying these events—so we're ready if, or when, it happens again.

 

[Mendel]

Absolutely, and let's not forget how much noise and bias can creep into witness testimonies regardless of their amount of training.

Like I've said before, we've got almost nothing to lose by treating this specific event seriously

i disagree strongly. it's a misdirection. you are misdirecting here.

and developing a systematic approach to register and investigate possible future encounters like this,

it already exists!

but ignoring the possibility of an advanced craft that could outmaneuver next-gen fighters could lead to a catastrophic blind spot.

no, it couldn't
if military intellugence had its budget cut in favor of chasing UFOs, then yes

It's not a conclusion, I'm not advocating for anything else other than precaution.

you are advocating for misplaced effort
you are misdirecting by making demands that are already fulfilled
you are misdirecting by demanding to investigate an event that can not ve investigated
you are misdirecting by claiming there is a reliable description of that event (there isn't)

The pilots' accounts hold steady across their interviews and written reports,

not with each other, and not over time

showing credible consistency. The video footage, captured by a separate group that flew right after the first, went to where the radar operator allegedly reported that the same object reappeared.

no
there was no way for a radar operator to determine that two traces come from the same object

They filmed the stationary shining shape—no rotors, no exhaust, and no sign of advanced aerodynamics; just an Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon.

which film are you referring to here? what is the evidence?

Never said or insinuated that.

i disagree, and I quoted you on it. click the link at the top of the quote to get the context.

Yes, and their flight pattern and position make it impossible for it to be. Fravo descended to engage in a downward spiral while Dietrich remained above as his hawkeye. Fravor and Dietrich state

no, they didnt both state that

that the tic-tac stopped its "zipping around like a fly" and engaged in the dogfight in a mirrored upwards spiral, like this; before accelerating at unmatchable speed.
View attachment 72980

Given the testimonies and the position of the Hornets, it's highly unlikely for it to be a reflection on the canopy.

good of you to walk back "impossible"

I'm saying "trust, but verify" The pilot's testimonies. Originally popularized by Ronald Reagan in the context of arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union, the phrase emphasizes a pragmatic approach to trust—one that acknowledges the value of good faith but also recognizes human fallibility and the complexities of relationships, especially in high-stakes situations. By verifying, you create accountability without undercutting trust. I've seen no reason so far to distrust these pilots, so I doubt they would be lying about this.

the reason? this: "let's not forget how much noise and bias can creep into witness testimonies regardless of their amount of training."
who wrote that? you, above

Sure, mistakes happen—but in this case, what are the odds? A radar plot tracked for two weeks

what? where is the evidence for that?

suddenly is investigated and turns out to be a visible, tangible, reactive engagement

tangible?

witnessed by four people, displaying extraordinary aerodynamics

not in evidence

with unparalleled acceleration,

not in evidence

reappearing on radar

not in evidence

and captured on FLIR?

not in evidence

it's a bunch of uncorroborated assumptions that Elizondo wants to be true

That's a lot of "coincidences" lining up.

no, it's not

Either every one of these individuals is lying outright, or there's someone with a pretty neat machine flying around.

so what happened to the other hypotheses that you said you did not insinuate are unlikely?
NOBODY has accused anyone of "lying outright", that's another misdirection

We may not have all the data to verify this event right now,

and we never will

but we can at least push for systems that make it easier to capture reliable evidence next time.

you can push for something that already exists, but it's a misdirection

There should be a systematic approach for reporting, recording, and relaying these events—so we're ready if, or when, it happens again.

there is!

 

[Ann K]

The UFO CIRCUS....
https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2024/05/ufos-the-unidentified-flying-circus-comes-to-town/

Good article, but I'll have to disagree with one point.

The Drake equation, something that measures the possibility of encountering alien life, is constantly contracting into the positive as more data becomes available.

I think the "Drake equation", having ZERO numerical terms, is not capable of "measuring" a darn thing. It merely describes the parameters that should be considered in that analysis, but none of them are quantified.

 

[Eburacum]

I do not believe that Mick West, or anyone else here, has put the 'reflection on the canopy' hypothesis forward as the most likely solution. As far as I can read it, the most plausible hypothesis is that Fravor was observing an object at a different distance to where he thought it was, and the 'mirrored upward spiral' was an artifact of parallax and his own misperceptions. Parallax can change the apparent movement of an object significantly, especially if you don't know the true size and distance.

The correlation between Fravor's account and Dietrich's account is not that good: Fravor remembers the event as lasting several minutes, Dietrich remembers it as lasting several seconds. Some of the correspondences between the accounts may be the result of post-hoc conversations, and so on. These doubts could all have been reduced if the radar data had been preserved.

 

[BoulderRiver]

I disagree strongly. it's a misdirection. you are misdirecting here.

I completely understand your position in having a differing opinion. However, could you clarify what exactly I'm misdirecting? I'm genuinely trying to communicate as clearly and objectively as I can. If it appears otherwise, it's likely due to my limited articulation in English, not my intention.

It already exists!

I'm aware of the debriefing report, but that's about it. That certainly doesn't qualify as a systematic approach. Even if it were considered one, it still relies on eyewitness testimony, which, as we've already discussed, is prone to various errors.

no, it couldn't
if military intellugence had its budget cut in favor of chasing UFOs, then yes

Everything in the sky is technically a UFO until it's identified. As for chasing them, that falls squarely under the realm of military intelligence.. Whether it's a balloon, a drone, a Soviet spy plane, a Chinese bomber, or even the planet Venus—none of them can be considered a threat or a natural phenomenon until identified, but all are UFOs in the absence of clear identification.

you are advocating for misplaced effort
you are misdirecting by making demands that are already fulfilled
you are misdirecting by demanding to investigate an event that can not ve investigated
you are misdirecting by claiming there is a reliable description of that event (there isn't)

Strong words here, fella.
I'm in no position to demand anything, nor did I attempt to do so.
You believe it's a misplaced effort to identify the sightings the military is reporting, yet that is simply part of their job as I've stated above.
I'm constantly questioning why shouldn't we investigate what has been seen and detected, but not identified. Just because it's extraordinary? That's bollocks.

not with each other, and not over time

From everything I've looked for the previous 7 years, they do.

no
there was no way for a radar operator to determine that two traces come from the same object

That's what Fravor and Dietrich reported, and what team 2 filmed on IR.

which film are you referring to here? what is the evidence?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...rom_the_USG_for_Public_Release.webm.360p.webm

Team 2 going where the radar plot appeared after Fravor's engagement and filming this UAP is not evidence but is an extraordinary sequence of events.

i disagree, and I quoted you on it. click the link at the top of the quote to get the context.

I never stated that all other hypotheses were impossible - I've mentioned specifically the canopy reflection which is favored by many users here and in other forums.

no, they didnt both state that

They do, both in the official report that you can read here, and in the live interviews, you can watch here, here, here, here, and here.

good of you to walk back "impossible"

I'll take any compliment I can get thanks
Still think it's borderline impossible, though.

the reason? this: "let's not forget how much noise and bias can creep into witness testimonies regardless of their amount of training."
who wrote that? you, above

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

what? where is the evidence for that?

That's part of the testimonies. According to them, the USS Princeton was testing a new radar technology, and these plots kept appearing. Initially, they assumed it was some sort of malfunction and requested repairs. But after the adjustments, the plots showed up even more clearly.

tangible?

According to the testimonies, the ocean below was reacting to it.

not in evidence
not in evidence
not in evidence
not in evidence
it's a bunch of uncorroborated assumptions that Elizondo wants to be true

Again, it's what the pilots are Testifying.

no, it's not

I would love to hear your opinion on it

so what happened to the other hypotheses that you said you did not insinuate are unlikely?

I'm aware of the canopy reflection, and I think I made my point on how impossible it would be for both aircrews to spot the same events if it were a simple reflection of something on the canopy, given their different positioning during the event.

NOBODY has accused anyone of "lying outright", that's another misdirection

I think you've confused or misread the phrase. I'm expressing my opinion in that phrase, not pointing fingers.
It is my opinion that either all these people are lying, or they are telling what they experienced to the best of their capabilities and training. And I don't think they are lying.

and we never will

Who knows for sure?

you can push for something that already exists, but it's a misdirection
there is!

As mentioned before, could you elaborate on this? All I've come across are the debriefing reports, which I believe were compiled with AARO. Is there any sensor data available that might corroborate these reports and confirm something unusual was indeed happening?

 

[MonkeeSage]

Yes, and their flight pattern and position make it impossible for it to be. Fravo descended to engage in a downward spiral while Dietrich remained above as his hawkeye. Fravor and Dietrich state that the tic-tac stopped its "zipping around like a fly" and engaged in the dogfight in a mirrored upwards spiral, like this; before accelerating at unmatchable speed.

Fravor says that, but Deitrich said it just kind of tumbled in place.

And it behaved in a way that we were surprised, unnerved...it accelerated...it almost didn't accelerate, right, it sort of jumped from from spot to spot and tumbled around in a way that was unpredictable.

DF: Yeah, it was just like a ping pong ball...
AD: No acceleration.
DF: Very, very random.
AD: No acceleration.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/fr...n-comparing-accounts.10941/page-7#post-297127

 

[EightyEight8]

I heard things had been uploaded early (or on time I don't know how this stuff works), so I looked about and I found this. I think all their witness statements and testimonies have just been uploaded today/tonight.
https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=117721

It was posted in this reddit thread, just wanted to give credit to whoever noticed it first.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gp5baz/access_witness_statements_to_be_delivered_at/

 

[Ann K]

Fravor says that, but Deitrich said it just kind of tumbled in place.

Thanks for finding that. It was my recollection that Dietrich didn't corroborate his description. I believe there was some discussion of whether there was a group aversion to contradicting the leader outright, but there was certainly not a full-throated agreement with him.

 

[Mendel]

I'm in no position to demand anything, nor did I attempt to do so.
You believe it's a misplaced effort to identify the sightings the military is reporting, yet that is simply part of their job as I've stated above.
I'm constantly questioning why shouldn't we investigate what has been seen and detected, but not identified. Just because it's extraordinary? That's bollocks.

You wrote, "we can at least push for systems that make it easier to capture reliable evidence next time". A "push for" something equates to a demand for me. AARO is already developing sensor suites, and UAPTF has already instituted processes that aim to archive all data associated with a UAP report.

And "unexplained" does not mean "extraordinary". It's usually very ordinary, because it's just something in the Low Information Zone (LIZ, see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ufo-acronyms-what-is-the-liz.11742/ ). Things don't become extraordinary just because they are out of focus or far away.

It is my opinion that either all these people are lying, or they are telling what they experienced to the best of their capabilities and training. And I don't think they are lying.

And yet you wrote, "let's not forget how much noise and bias can creep into witness testimonies regardless of their amount of training."
All of the stuff that I replied "not in evidence" to are biased interpretations or conclusions based on what they were seeing, and as such are not reliable.

Who knows for sure?

I know for sure. Because the evidence we have is insufficient, and there is never going to be more evidence on these incidents.

 

[Mendel]

and developing a systematic approach to register and investigate possible future encounters like this,

it already exists!

I'm aware of the debriefing report, but that's about it.

here's where I have a hard time believing this is not a bad faith reply

you set the context originally as "future encounters", but your response pivots back to TicTac, which was 2 decades ago—even though the quote establishing that context is right there!

 

[BoulderRiver]

It seems I may have unintentionally steered the conversation a bit off course, touching on topics only loosely related to the Congressional Hearings with the alleged USS Nimitz encounters. My apologies for that!

It might be best for us to continue this discussion in the relevant thread, where I'll make sure to quote and address the questions raised here.
You can find it here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/fr...lax-illusion-comparing-accounts.10941/page-10

 

[JMartJr]

Things don't become extraordinary just because they are out of focus or far away.

Nice. If I aver get around to adding a signature here, I may "borrow" that.

 

[Mick West]

A rather brutal assessment of Gallaudet's prepared statement from Sean Kirkpatrick, the former head of AARO. Via @sgreenstreet

Source: https://x.com/puwulitics/status/1856418279281320228

"Mr. Gallaudet is clearly still bitter that I didn't hire him into AARO when he came looking for a job. His predisposed tendencies for conspiracies without evidence made him unsuitable for a job that required objectivity and evidence-based reason. I verified my decision with some of his previous bosses and peers.

In his first paragraph he states that AARO should brief Congress. AARO has been briefing the appropriate committees in Congress since day 1. I was on the Hill personally answering questions and providing data nearly weekly not only as Director but after I retired. What Mr. Gallaudet clearly doesn't understand is that the HCOA is not one of those committees as they don't have authority over AARO. It was not until after I retired that the HCOA committee even asked for a briefing, and then I came up to answer their questions, which basically had little to do with fact and more to do with playhouse theater, even in a classified setting.

Furthermore, let's be clear. I had at least two interviewees who came to us and stated for the record that certain members and staffers on the Hill specifically told them NOT to come share their information with AARO, not because they didn't trust us, but because they wanted to hide information. Information that we discovered through other means. In other words, there were elements on the Hill obstructing the very office that other elements on the Hill established to investigate these claims. Mr. Gallaudet was associated with that contingent of people.

To address his specific claim concerning errors in the historical report. I have answered that question previously to the press. Yes, there were a few errors in the report that did not get caught by the technical editors in the rush to get the report to Congress by the deadline, both the unclassified and classified versions. The classified annex had no such mistakes as that was the most relevant. The errors do not substantially change the resulting conclusions and evidence presented. In my briefing to Congress, that was discussed with the appropriate committees.

Referring to his second paragraph, this is a typical response from conspiracists who do not want to believe an alternative explanation given evidence. It is either fake news, or disinformation. The difference is evidentiary. The historical report is born out by both public and classified records. Particularly interesting was the KONA BLUE effort that we uncovered and DECLASSIFIED as per Congressional direction. The fact that we questioned everything is exactly what an objective, evidentiary based investigation should do. The response from Mr. Gallaudet that suggests that we had no right to question, is a glaring red flag calling into question his judgement. Suggesting that AARO was employing disinformation is the expected response in the face of contrary evidence and science. As this is becoming the new norm, I sense a return to dark ages of mysticism and magic. I would have expected better from a Navy Officer, however, if I've learned anything in my time as AARO Director, it is that rational actors are becoming an endangered species."

 

[Mendel]

Furthermore, let's be clear. I had at least two interviewees who came to us and stated for the record that certain members and staffers on the Hill specifically told them NOT to come share their information with AARO, not because they didn't trust us, but because they wanted to hide information. Information that we discovered through other means. In other words, there were elements on the Hill obstructing the very office that other elements on the Hill established to investigate these claims. Mr. Gallaudet was associated with that contingent of people.

that is a bombshell, but on the other hand not that surprising given how Elizondo and Reid operated

 

[Mendel]

Gallaudet's witness statement is available on https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-congress/house-event/117721

There's also a "Truth in Testimony" form containing this:

 

[FatPhil]

Furthermore, let's be clear. I had at least two interviewees who came to us and stated for the record that certain members and staffers on the Hill specifically told them NOT to come share their information with AARO, not because they didn't trust us, but because they wanted to hide information. Information that we discovered through other means. In other words, there were elements on the Hill obstructing the very office that other elements on the Hill established to investigate these claims. Mr. Gallaudet was associated with that contingent of people.

that is a bombshell, but on the other hand not that surprising given how Elizondo and Reid operated

I prefer to view it as a "disclosure", which is what they've been baying for, isn't it?

 

[Mendel]

Referring to his second paragraph, this is a typical response from conspiracists who do not want to believe an alternative explanation given evidence.

This is that paragraph:

 

[JMartJr]

Shellenberger's planned testimony is here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/...G-118-GO12-Wstate-ShellenbergerM-20241113.pdf It is about 11 pages long, followed by 201 pages of appendices. Just skimming through the latter,the vast majority of it is a timeline that tosses out an astonishing array of of conspiracy theories and "woo" claims, from 1947 and Roswell (yes, again/still) forward to 2023 -- I will quote the second to the last one on page 212, it seems to me to capture the intellectual rigor of the timeline while also having entertainment value:

8 February 2023 — Journalist George Knapp says Alfred O'Donnell, a former
senior manager at EG&G, a defense contractor that managed Area 51, told him "they" had a flying saucer
recovered in New Mexico. EG&G also had a "live being" who looked human, kind of like Ross Perot
and not the classic gray alien.
●
https://www.liberationtimes.com/home/former-chief-for-defense-contractor-that-ran-area-51-clai
med-knowledge-of-recovered-flying-saucer-and-live-being-as-congress-looks-to-uncover-details-
of-alleged-illegal-ufo-programs

I may file a FOIA request seeking any and all photographs of this Alien who looks like Ross Perot.

It drags out many of the old and new chestnuts of credulous UFOlogy, and I consider it to be the longest Gish Gallop I have ever encountered (skimming the first 11 pages of actual testimony, my understanding is that Shellenberger did not write/compile this timeline, but thinks it should have been included in an earlier report (the AARO report?) So it would be unfair to blame him for creating, it, his sole blame regarding the list is to dump it into the record of a hearing of the United States Congress.

Being as long as it is, and having just found it myself, I have not yet red it all but wanted to go ahead and post the link for interested parties, in advance of tomorrow's hearings. I hope that this bypassing of the no click policy will be forgiven in light of the length of the document and the shortness of time before the hearing. If I find anyting in reading the document that I think should have been mentioned, I'll add a follow up post.

I assume other witness statements/testimony may be discoverable on this site House.gov site, but have not searched for them as I already have more than I will be able to read in time, before the actual hearing.