Pilot sees multiple lights from aircraft (UAP Files Podcast)

[flarkey]

Yesterday an interview was posted by our friend and Metabunk Member @UAPF in which he talks with an Airline pilot who has seen multiple UAPs whilst flying. The full interview is below. The interesting part (the evidence) comes at time 21m37s where a number of videos are shown. The videos that have been offered as evidence seem to just show known phenomena, such as satellites (Starlink flares and starlink trains) but this has yet to be confirmed because the host of the podcast and witness have so far not released date, time & location data.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOlGgs5-kyg

Lets look at the evidence...

Is this a starlink train:

Are these Starlink flares:

Not sure what this is supposed to be showing - is the the pink blob the UAP? If so it looks like a reflection of the iPhone autofocus system.

https://nova.astrometry.net/user_images/10970684#annotated

Can we glean any data from the parts of the video that show instruments?

I think this shows position as over the meditteranean,The coastline matches the coast of Libya and Egypt.

https://skyvector.com/?ll=32.21094199784765,19.917114260524237&chart=304&zoom=6

And the Flight Information Regions match

Source: https://ops.group/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Sudan-Africa-airspace-maps-2-scaled.jpg

This view of the FMS shows the plane transiting the Red Sea.

This suggests the rout is KIAD to OTHH ... ?

KIAD is Washington - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulles_International_Airport
OTHH is Hamad International Airport - Doha Qatar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamad_International_Airport

This is a bit hard to read but I think it say A7-AMG, A350 - ????

The Plane Reg is A7-AMG ... ! That makes it this plane - an Airbus A350. This exact one ....!

https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/airbus-a350-900-a7-amg-qatar-airways/3wvm4q?refresh=1

That plane has only flown that route 5 times since February 2024.

Source: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/a7-amg#

The flight on 6 March 24 matches the route over the Mediterranean and the Red sea. (Kml attached). All the other flights have a different route eastward, which are to the north over France, so that rules them out as a possible date for this flight.. So the estimated Time is 00.45UTC on 7 March 2024.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/a7-amg#344218d9



Now that we have a possible location date & time - Lets check that in the Starlink Flare simulator in Sitrec...

So ... If that flight data is correct, it puts them right in the middle of the Starlink flare band. Flares would have been seen on their port side, near the horizon repeatedly for nearly an hour - just like we see in the video.

https://www.metabunk.org/u/EmYOam.html

[Edit] - I now think the flight was a few days before this on 2nd March , but that doesn't greatly affect the visibility of Starlink flares at that time, location and part of the sky. Here's the Sitrec simulator for that day at the same time

https://www.metabunk.org/u/sLTfpJ.html

 

[jarlrmai]

Another great investigation that will further define which elements of cockpit videos UFO proponents need to remove from videos before they share them to ensure the mystery is maintained.

 

[flarkey]

I've been having a bit of a argument with @UAPF recently, along with @Edward Current . There are a lot of video's he has posted that show 'orbs' and claims that satellite trackers have been checked by the witness - only for me to go and check them and find that the ISS was visible at exactly the same date, time & location. He has then gone on to block me on twitter, instagram, and discord. Here's the latest example from Youtube (I'm not blocked yet ).


Source: https://youtube.com/shorts/kf08zpBNkQI?si=I4kut1nlJUX1KoYA

Orb UFO / UAP Sighting | September 6, 2024 | Escondido, California (San Diego County) 5:46 AM | Credit: mrdiaz_cali (IG)| Witness account: The witness captured footage of an orb outside their home, which they regularly observe almost nightly. However, this was the first time they saw and filmed the orb in the morning using their iPhone 14 Pro Max. No satellite detection equipment was involved in capturing the footage. The witness rules out the possibility of the object being the International Space Station (ISS).
#ufo #uap #ufofootage #uapfootage #ufonews #uapfiles #uapfilespodcast

Here's the pass prediction from in-the-sky.org for Escondido Escondido, California (San Diego County) 5:46 AM September 6, 2024

An exact match.

 

[Mendel]

It's not a UAP, it's a RIP — Refuse to Identify Phenomenon at this point.

 

[jarlrmai]

The rule outs are so specific it implies they checked it, found out it was that, and then just decided to deny it.

 

[flarkey]

It's not a UAP, it's a RIP — Refuse to Identify Phenomenon at this point.

We need to be careful how we refer to people who have sightings like this, particularly @UAPF has a bit of a bee in his bonnet, as shown by this screenshot from the video Premiere live chat last night. He seems to think that if one person tries to identify something that another could not identify then it is akin to mocking them, saying they are confused, liars or accusing them of being mentally ill. Metabunk shouldn't be a place of mockery. It is a place of science, education and puzzle solving.

But I do agree that there is an element that do not want to investigate claims. The attitude is moving from not just of 'trust me bro', but a an immediate reply of 'I trust you bro!' and witnesses' claims are not checked and verified. The refusal to investigate or identify the phenomenon just seems to be an attempt to perpetuate the mystery and the unknown.

 

[jarlrmai]

It always has been, it's nothing new

Is this the same podcast?

 

[flarkey]

It always has been, it's nothing new

Is this the same podcast?
View attachment 71583

No, not that one, this one. I dont think it is monetized.


Source: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/uap-files-podcast/id1741618111

Mick has been a guest:

Source: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/uap-files-podcast-e18-mick-west/id1741618111?i=1000652655994

 

[jarlrmai]

No, not that one, this one. I dont think it is monetized.


Source: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/uap-files-podcast/id1741618111

Mick has been a guest:

Source: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/uap-files-podcast-e18-mick-west/id1741618111?i=1000652655994

https://buymeacoffee.com/uapfiles

 

[flarkey]

I've been looking (squinting) at this again....

I initially thought this said A7-AMG, A350 - ????. But the AMG aircraft is an A350-900, which doesnt fit the four characters after the dash.

I now think this says A7-ANC A350-1041, which makes it this aircraft...

It has only been on the Washington-Doha route about 6 times in the last year, and the flight on 1st/2nd March 2024 matches the one above in terms of flightpath over the Med, and the timings are very close to the other one listed above. The KML isnt availabe for download on FlightRadar24, but the plane is visible on the playback.

https://www.flightradar24.com/2024-03-02/00:33/20x/QTR52C/3432ef68

This means that the sitrec simulation wont be greatly different than was previously shown. The appearance of Starlink Horizon flares off their port side would still be there for this flight a few days earlier.

What this does is highlight the need for the pilots (and podcasters) to release date, time and location data of these sightings that they claim are anomalous or extraordinary - otherwise they are just making it difficult to identify the UAP and obfuscating the investigation.

Jimmy - ( @UAPF ) - are you able to release the date & time data for this video, or can you ask the pilot for the date & flight number? Thanks

 

[Mendel]

There are a lot of video's he has posted that show 'orbs' and claims that satellite trackers have been checked by the witness - only for me to go and check them and find that the ISS was visible at exactly the same date, time & location.

He seems to think that if one person tries to identify something that another could not identify then it is akin to mocking them, saying they are confused, liars or accusing them of being mentally ill. Metabunk shouldn't be a place of mockery. It is a place of science, education and puzzle solving.

A lot of people are affronted when an error they made is pointed out, however politely it is done.

There is no way to sugarcoat "I checked the satellite tracker and it didn't turn up"—"I checked it, too, and it did". Someone at the very least made some kind of error. It's not a character flaw, everyone makes errors, it's not a choice. (But responding badly to criticism is.)

I feel that the stance "you can't say it's the ISS because I already said it's not" is disrespectful. You can't stake a claim to the truth like that and detach it from reality.

You can't hold up something as proof that you've insulated against critical review.I feel that is a mockery. And it's not an error, either, it's a conscious choice.

 

[taurusclover21]

He has then gone on to block me on twitter, instagram, and discord. Here's the latest example from Youtube (I'm not blocked yet ).

He blocked me, too.

 

[UAPF]

Yesterday an interview was posted by our friend and Metabunk Member @UAPF in which he talks with a Qatar Airlines pilot who has seen multiple UAPs whilst flying. The full interview is below. The interesting part (the evidence) comes at time 21m37s where aa number of videos are shown. The videos that have been offered as evidence seem to just show known phenomena, such as satellites (Starlink flares and starlink trains) but this has yet to be confirmed because the host of the podcast and witness have so far not released date, time & location data.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOlGgs5-kyg

Lets look at the evidence...

Is this a starlink train:
View attachment 71554

Are these Starlink flares:
View attachment 71556

Not sure what this is supposed to be showing - is the the pink blob the UAP? If so it looks like a reflection of the iPhone autofocus system.
View attachment 71560


Can we glean any data from the parts of the video that show instruments?
View attachment 71557

View attachment 71604

I think this shows position as over the meditteranean,The coastline matches the coast of Libya and Egypt.
View attachment 71558

https://skyvector.com/?ll=32.21094199784765,19.917114260524237&chart=304&zoom=6
View attachment 71559
And the Flight Information Regions match
View attachment 71561
Source: https://ops.group/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Sudan-Africa-airspace-maps-2-scaled.jpg

This view of the FMS shows the plane transiting the Red Sea.
View attachment 71567
This suggests the rout is KIAD to OTHH ... ?
View attachment 71562
KIAD is Washington - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulles_International_Airport
OTHH is Hamad International Airport - Doha Qatar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamad_International_Airport

This is a bit hard to read but I think it say A7-AMG, A350 - ????
View attachment 71563

The Plane Reg is A7-AMG ... ! That makes it this plane - an Airbus A350. This exact one ....!
View attachment 71571
https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/airbus-a350-900-a7-amg-qatar-airways/3wvm4q?refresh=1

View attachment 71564

That plane has only flown that route 5 times since February 2024.
View attachment 71565
Source: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/a7-amg#

The flight on 6 March 24 matches the route over the Mediterranean and the Red sea. (Kml attached). All the other flights have a different route eastward, which are to the north over France, so that rules them out as a possible date for this flight.. So the estimated Time is 00.45UTC on 7 March 2024.
View attachment 71569
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/a7-amg#344218d9



Now that we have a possible location date & time - Lets check that in the Starlink Flare simulator in Sitrec...

So ... If that flight data is correct, it puts them right in the middle of the Starlink flare band. Flares would have been seen on their port side, near the horizon repeatedly for nearly an hour - just like we see in the video.
View attachment 71570
https://www.metabunk.org/u/EmYOam.html

[Edit] - I now think the flight was a few days before this on 2nd March , but that doesn't greatly affect the visibility of Starlink flares at that time, location and part of the sky. Here's the Sitrec simulator for that day at the same time

https://www.metabunk.org/u/sLTfpJ.html
View attachment 71605

Flarkey,

First, calling me a member - oh the blasphemy. Yes, I joined to dig into the Kumburgaz case, after I interviewed Yalcin.

You're right—I didn't provide specific times, dates, or locations for the pilot's footage on this video. That was deliberate, not to hinder any investigation, but to protect the pilot's identity and agreement reached before the episode aired. Airlines are still wary of reputational damage, and while I don't believe he crossed any lines, I couldn't risk even a small chance of impacting his livelihood. I couldn't live with myself if I had been responsible. Integrity is important.

I kindly ask that you remove any links you may have drawn to a specific airline. This is a personal request. What you choose to do is up to your conscience. Almost all of the other 1k+ footage in posts, reels and stories have linked a date location and time. I've even started posting a screenshot of metadata in some recent cases, so this was a unique situation. The suggestion this was to hide anything or to prevent being exposed I find unfair.

Now, I didn't block you for challenging the videos. Discourse is welcomed—our Discord is full of differing opinions, some even suggesting Starlink. What crossed the line was the offensive language (which to your credit you apologised for later) and claims that my sources are liars (whilst the claims were indirect, they still crossed my line in the sand). Additionally, another individual you associate with was warned about referring to my guests as mentally ill.

Now, regarding your analysis, I understand the skepticism. Starlink likely accounts for 'some' sightings, but this pilot, who uses tracking apps, saw objects behaving in ways that defy conventional explanations—flying through clouds, near his aircraft. That's data I value. We differ on credible witness testimony being a data point.

Yes, with 10,000 satellites in orbit, it's easy to connect one somewhere near and boom, you've resolved it. But credible witnesses, those who observe things beyond the ordinary, add another layer of intrigue—especially when these accounts mirror many historical sightings (Foo Fighters) long before the skies were flooded with satellites.

Many have told me to block people who belittle the subject, not to engage, but I've always preferred respectful engagement. I believe there's something out there that defies what we currently understand. I'm not claiming aliens, but some form of intelligence beyond our grasp.

I don't believe there being one of the 10,000 satellites in the sky somewhere near and it looking 'a bit like' is a thorough enough investigation. Again, Foo Fighters match the descriptions identically. If the witness testimony (of the object being below the cloud) is going to be discounted (because it couldn't be Starlink then) that's where we end our exchange. There's nowhere we can go from there.

I write about this in an article here: https://open.substack.com/pub/uapf/p/the-challenge-of-finding-common-ground?r=3avcjy&utm_medium=ios

 

[flarkey]

Now, I didn't block you for challenging the videos. Discourse is welcomed—our Discord is full of differing opinions, some even suggesting Starlink. What crossed the line was the offensive language (which to your credit you apologised for later) and claims that my sources are liars (whilst the claims were indirect, they still crossed my line in the sand). Additionally, another individual you associate with was warned about referring to my guests as mentally ill.

offensive language? I believe what I said was "no need to be a douchebag" .


Source: https://x.com/flarkey/status/1833500007850275137?t=yNbazO3szMxJVDZVdV57tA&s=19

And I have never, ever suggested that you or any of your "witnesses" are liars. How can they be lying about not being able to identify something? They're not acting dumb. They, like Boni, were unable to identify something unusual at the time. And now, with the internet at our disposal, we can re examine their evidence and Identify it. That is it. that is all I am claiming. That is what this site does - and to reject that effort that we put in is just ignoring knowledge. I accept that not all UAPs are identifiable - but some are and we owe it to the witnesses to identify what they saw and give them closure on what can be a significant event to them.

I'm sorry you feel like this Jimmy @UAPF .

 

[taurusclover21]

this pilot, who uses tracking apps, saw objects behaving in ways that defy conventional explanations—flying through clouds, near his aircraft. That's data I value. We differ on credible witness testimony being a data point.

Explain how testimony is a "data point."

 

[UAPF]

offensive language? I believe what I said was "no need to be a douchebag" .


Source: https://x.com/flarkey/status/1833500007850275137?t=yNbazO3szMxJVDZVdV57tA&s=19

And I have never, ever suggested that you or any of your "witnesses" are liars. How can they be lying about not being able to identify something? They're not acting dumb. They, like Boni, were unable to identify something unusual at the time. And now, with the internet at our disposal, we can re examine their evidence and Identify it. That is it. that is all I am claiming. That is what this site does - and to reject that effort that we put in is just ignoring knowledge. I accept that not all UAPs are identifiable - but some are and we owe it to the witnesses to identify what they saw and give them closure on what can be a significant event to them.

I'm sorry you feel like this Jimmy @UAPF .

Perhaps the UK has a different understanding for that word. But I'm not a fan of it.

If a guest says I was flying here and I checked this tracking app and therefore it can't be Starlink and you say it's Starlink, then that's calling them dishonest. Unless the claim is something else. That these Starlink didn't tack to the app? Or if the guest says the object flew or hovered below a cloud and you say it's Starlink (which doesn't go below clouds) is the assertion not that they're being dishonest? Because if they're being honest, then you can't 'resolve' it as a Starlink. But you did. Do you see my point?

 

[saucerpilot]

This isn't my conversation, but one or the other party being dishonest is not the only explanation for why they've reached different conclusions. There may be some peculiarity about the way in which they are using a tracking app, for example, which is causing them to reach wrong conclusions.

EDIT: If I were using the same tool as other people, and if I believed I was using it correctly, but I found that I was consistently getting different results from those other people, then I'd want to discover where the error was located. On my end? On their end? And what kind of error?

 

[UAPF]

Explain how testimony is a "data point."

It is, at a bare minimum, qualitative data. Witness testimonies from trained observers like pilots, astronauts, or scientists…observational evidence that can contribute to the overall understanding - that is science. It's been used as data forever. Human trials in pharmaceuticals. Physiological studies, ethnographic studies and of course criminal cases.



Put it this way, we're unlikely to change the others mind on this. You'll accept sensor data, but then when it shows the extraordinary its 'sensor error'. We can't gain any common ground. Ever. Until you have an experience, perhaps.



The argument will rage on for a long time. The common misconception is we (people who believe there is 'something' out there were don't yet understand) believe every blob put on TikTok is real aliens. When the reality is we're similar to the likes of AARO. 95% is probably conventional. But it's the 5% that is important and shouldn't be simply cast aside because there may have been an observable ISS up there at the time. We don't know where the camera was pointing, or what distance the object was captured at, but it 'must have been' the ISS. Because I'll only consider conventional explanations etc etc.

 

[flarkey]

Perhaps the UK has a different understanding for that word. But I'm not a fan of it.

If a guest says I was flying here and I checked this tracking app and therefore it can't be Starlink and you say it's Starlink, then that's calling them dishonest. Unless the claim is something else. That these Starlink didn't tack to the app? Or if the guest says the object flew or hovered below a cloud and you say it's Starlink (which doesn't go below clouds) is the assertion not that they're being dishonest? Because if they're being honest, then you can't 'resolve' it as a Starlink. Bit you did. Do you see my point?

there are a lot of starlink trackers out there and they only do two things. 1) show the position of the starlink trains that are visible due a few days after launch or 2) show the entire starlink constellation over the earth. There are currently no apps that show the Starlink Horizon Flares that have been dubbed 'racetrack UAP' by pilots.

As far as I know, there is only one piece of software that calculates and predicts starlink flares and that is @Mick West 's sitrec on this website. it is not mobile friendly and can be tricky to use if you're not a geek like me.

So if someone says "I downloaded an app after the sighting and checked to see if the ISS or starlink was overhead and it wasn't" - I'm not calling them dishonest, stupid, or liars. Im saying trying to interpret the apps is difficult and some of the things you can see aren't even on the apps. maybe I am guilty of being overconfident or smug in my identification skills, but that's based on 35 years of plane spotting, amateur astronomy and satellite spotting most nights with telescopes and cameras.

All I'm saying is - some initially unidentified UAP are identifiable when the right people see & analyse the evidence. People deserve to know what they saw.

 

[FatPhil]

If a guest says I was flying here and I checked this tracking app and therefore it can't be Starlink and you say it's Starlink, then that's calling them dishonest.

It's not, it's calling them mistaken. You can be honest and mistaken.

Unless the claim is something else. That these Starlink didn't tack to the app? Or if the guest says the object flew or hovered below a cloud and you say it's Starlink (which doesn't go below clouds ...

Visually, they do, and we're talking about visual evidence. Anything that can go below the horizon - the sun, the moon, the stars, and satellites - will go below clouds too.

 

[flarkey]

It is, at a bare minimum, qualitative data. Witness testimonies from trained observers like pilots, astronauts, or scientists…observational evidence that can contribute to the overall understanding - that is science. It's been used as data forever. Human trials in pharmaceuticals. Physiological studies, ethnographic studies and of course criminal cases.



Put it this way, we're unlikely to change the others mind on this. You'll accept sensor data, but then when it shows the extraordinary its 'sensor error'. We can't gain any common ground. Ever. Until you have an experience, perhaps.



The argument will rage on for a long time. The common misconception is we (people who believe there is 'something' out there were don't yet understand) believe every blob put on TikTok is real aliens. When the reality is we're similar to the likes of AARO. 95% is probably conventional. But it's the 5% that is important and shouldn't be simply cast aside because there may have been an observable ISS up there at the time. We don't know where the camera was pointing, or what distance the object was captured at, but it 'must have been' the ISS. Because I'll only consider conventional explanations etc etc.

but in many cases we do know where the camera was pointing - like in the example above from Scotland where the moon was in shot. We could see the 'orb' next to the moon. the astronomy website showed the ISS pass next to the moon.

Like in the other example above from San Diego - we could see that they were filming the 'orb' directly overhead. The ISS was directly overhead at the time of the video as evidenced by the astronomy website.

Like in the pilots example above - we know they were looking out the left side of the aircraft near the horizon. The starlink flares would have been only visible on the left near the horizon.

This isn't rocket science Jimmy. We can work out to a relatively high degree of certainty where the witness were looking. And time and time again there is a prosaic light there waiting to be misidentified.

 

[taurusclover21]

It is, at a bare minimum, qualitative data. Witness testimonies from trained observers like pilots, astronauts, or scientists…observational evidence that can contribute to the overall understanding - that is science. It's been used as data forever. Human trials in pharmaceuticals. Physiological studies, ethnographic studies and of course criminal cases.

A data point is a single, discrete piece of information. It's the smallest unit of data that can be collected, analyzed, or interpreted and represents a specific observation or value related to a particular variable or attribute.

And please don't go down the "trained observer" and "it's science" rabbit holes.

 

[taurusclover21]

But it's the 5% that is important and shouldn't be simply cast aside because there may have been an observable ISS up there at the time.

You're making it sound like the skeptics' hypothesis is the unreasonable one out of the two options which, unlike the ufologist one, has plenty of priors in history. Let me remind you.

1. The Skeptics' Hypothesis:

Fravor's report is a sincere eyewitness report which adds to the mass of eyewitness reports from the general public as well as trained professionals, whereby the power of human imagination together with the brain's visual perception functions and unusual viewing conditions (such as parallax illusions and featureless objects), further informed by cultural fiction and myth, fills observational information gaps.

2. The Ufologists' Hypothesis:

Aliens.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage-flir1.9190/post-296954

 

[Ann K]

If a guest says I was flying here and I checked this tracking app and therefore it can't be Starlink and you say it's Starlink, then that's calling them dishonest.

Not so. It's calling them incorrect.

 

[Easy Muffin]

Yes, with 10,000 satellites in orbit, it's easy to connect one somewhere near and boom, you've resolved it. But credible witnesses, those who observe things beyond the ordinary, add another layer of intrigue—especially when these accounts mirror many historical sightings (Foo Fighters) long before the skies were flooded with satellites.

Many have told me to block people who belittle the subject, not to engage, but I've always preferred respectful engagement. I believe there's something out there that defies what we currently understand. I'm not claiming aliens, but some form of intelligence beyond our grasp.

I don't believe there being one of the 10,000 satellites in the sky somewhere near and it looking 'a bit like' is a thorough enough investigation. Again, Foo Fighters match the descriptions identically. If the witness testimony (of the object being below the cloud) is going to be discounted (because it couldn't be Starlink then) that's where we end our exchange. There's nowhere we can go from there.

I think it's important to point out that we do quite a bit more than that here, though. It's true there's satellites pretty much wherever you look these days, but we don't just go and point to the nearest one and pronounce the case solved.
Where there's enough information on time and location to go on alongside good enough footage we can recreate the movements of entire groups of satellites, which shouldn't be possible by random chance if the observed lights were something else. It's also quite a bit more than saying it 'looks a bit like it.' On the other hand, I would argue that we've heard a number of grandiose descriptions from pilots that didn't match the accompanying, much more mundane video footage at all.
But most strikingly, so far every single one of the reports we investigated turned out to be from an observer that was situated within the Starlink flare band, which as you can see from the screenshots above represents only a very small area of the Earth's surface. It also turns out that the observed lights always appear in the direction of the Sun. That brings these reports completely in line with everything we know about Starlink flares, and it raises the question why we haven't seen a single report from anywhere outside the narrow flare band, if these objects were indeed something else.
I'd love to see a video one day that is unambiguously outside the band, but until then I don't think you can make a case for these lights to be anything other than flaring Starlink sats.

 

[Mendel]

Or if the guest says the object flew or hovered below a cloud and you say it's Starlink (which doesn't go below clouds) is the assertion not that they're being dishonest?

We have several examples on this site where observers mistake a light above the clouds as being in the clouds, especially if it extinguishes at some point. It's an optical illusion of sorts, nothing dishonest, but still wrong.

A witness talking about grey blobs appearing and disappearing would honestly be reporting their impression, but still be wrong.
It's not enough to be honest to be right.

 

[Mendel]

The argument will rage on for a long time. The common misconception is we (people who believe there is 'something' out there were don't yet understand) believe every blob put on TikTok is real aliens. When the reality is we're similar to the likes of AARO. 95% is probably conventional. But it's the 5% that is important and shouldn't be simply cast aside because there may have been an observable ISS up there at the time. We don't know where the camera was pointing, or what distance the object was captured at, but it 'must have been' the ISS. Because I'll only consider conventional explanations etc etc.

You are not similar to the likes of AARO (or Metabunk).
The distinction is not that you'll believe everything, but that you don't require evidence for those things you do believe. And that's apparent because there is absolutely no evidence supporting the idea that your 5% are anything but conventional.

A hypothetical: You like liquorice lollies. You buy a big jar of 100 assorted lollies. As you unscrew it and put the lid away, a kid runs by and steals 5 lollies. It happened so quickly that you didn't even see which ones. To your great disappointment, you examine the remaining 95 lollies, and none are liquorice. What do you think?
a) these 5 lost lollies probably weren't liquorice either
b) "it's the 5% that is important and shouldn't be simply cast aside" because that's where the liquorice lollies must've been

If it could be the ISS, why would you think there's reason to believe it's a non-human craft?

It's not an argument. It's belief vs. evidence.

There's nothing wrong with belief, unless it claims to be knowledge.

 

[flarkey]

There's nothing wrong with belief, unless it claims to be knowledge.

Knowledge is actually a subset of belief....

Source: https://medium.com/perspectivepublications/the-difference-between-belief-and-knowledge-cb909520a265


What I think you're getting at is when someone belives something without evidence - and that then is faith. Not that I am one to quote The Bible, but I like its definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1 – "...faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen". That seems particularly true in many UFO cases where all we have is a video, and the assurance of the witness that it shows something extraordinary or extraterrestrial.

 

[taurusclover21]

What I think you're getting at is when someone belives something without evidence - and that then is faith. Not that I am one to quote The Bible, but I like its definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1 – "...faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen". That seems particularly true in many UFO cases where all we have is a video, and the assurance of the witness that it shows something extraordinary or extraterrestrial.

There is only poor evidence that claims to show alien spacecraft. Why? Because the claimant so badly wants there to be alien spacecraft.

Faith is all which is left when truth is removed.

FAITH - The WILFUL belief in ideas that, BUT FOR "FAITH", would be dismissed as nonsense.

 

[JMartJr]

When the reality is we're similar to the likes of AARO. 95% is probably conventional. But it's the 5% that is important and shouldn't be simply cast aside because there may have been an observable ISS up there at the time.

Would you agree that, given the number of times in that 95% an extraordinary report has turned out the be something mundane, such as Flarkey's Jupiter/Mars UAP in the post 2 posts above this one, it is conclusively proven that strange and seemingly inexplicable reports can be generated by mundane phenomena like planets, planes, balloons and the like?

If so, then given that is the case, is not the most logical explanation for the remaining 5% "more normal stuff but with less information captured so it never gets solved?" Even assuming there is something novel and new lurking in there, isn't it extremely likely that at least SOME of it is mundane stuff such as was seen in the solved cases?

We KNOW mundane planes and planets and such exist. we know they generate exotic seeming reports. We KNOW mundane things generate extraordinary seeming reports. We DON'T know that aliens spaceships, or inter-dimensional beings, or time travelers, or any of the other popular "real UFO" explanations offered by believers do, in fact, exist.

All that being the case, I don't think there is any particular value in witness reports without supporting hard evidence -- even if there is signal hidden in all that noise, there is no real way to differentiate one from the other and the data set is, at the very best, hopelessly corrupted with extraneous chaff not related to the purported phenomenon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to reflect that taurusclover21 got a post in between this one and the one by flarkey referenced here-in...

 

[Mendel]

Knowledge is actually a subset of belief....

I don't agree with that definition, it's too simplistic.
And "faith" is a loaded word that I wouldn't want to use.
I wouldn't mind discussing this elsewhere, but taking the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as a basis.

 

[taurusclover21]

All that being the case, I don't think there is any particular value in witness reports without supporting hard evidence -- even if there is signal hidden in all that noise, there is no real way to differentiate one from the other and the data set is, at the very best, hopelessly corrupted with extraneous chaff not related to the purported phenomenon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to reflect that taurusclover21 got a post in between this one and the one by flarkey referenced here-in...

It's said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Eye witness testimony is the opposite of that.

 

[taurusclover21]

EDIT: Moved rest of post to new thread.

Thanks!

 

[taurusclover21]

So it looks like the witness captured two planets, not UAP craft that "seemed to split into two before regrouping". This is yet another one of the videos from the UAP Files Podcast feed that could easily be explained after a short investigation by the right people.

Good job!

 

[Ann K]

Doubting the witness seems to be the same as calling them a liar or unstable.

No it isn't, although that's the spin a particularly defensive witness ("I know what I saw!) might put on it. The alternative would be accepting the word of every witness without the appropriate evidence or questions. The story may have been untrue, or it may have been a misperception, it may have been an excited utterance or it may have been caused by intoxication. Not every question speaks of disbelief; it's just an entirely appropriate way to investigate.

 

[NorCal Dave]

No it isn't, although that's the spin a particularly defensive witness ("I know what I saw!) might put on it. The alternative would be accepting the word of every witness without the appropriate evidence or questions. The story may have been untrue, or it may have been a misperception, it may have been an excited utterance or it may have been caused by intoxication. Not every question speaks of disbelief; it's just an entirely appropriate way to investigate.

Yes, that's the spin put on by many in the UFOlogy community. And I'd note, it's the UFOlogist that often go straight to the supposed "liar" or "crazy/mentally unstable" claim of skeptics when a witness is questioned, as this furthers the insulting nature of the questioning.

More often than not the questions are about what the witness actually saw and was it a misidentification or a bit of confusion, things like that. However, giving the history of hoaxes in the UFO world, suggesting that some witness may be less than truthful is a perfectly reasoned stance.