Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ?

[Scaramanga]

There's a difference between a skeptic and a debunker.

A skeptic will simply evaluate a claim against the evidence provided. If the evidence is ambiguous, the claim is not accepted and the object remains unidentified.

A debunker works from a belief system that the claim and the evidence are just 'bunk' and tries to present an alternative claim that fits the evidence. This claim is sometimes called an 'explanation' because a debunker feels a need to educate the general public which is all too gullible and to expose the people who abuse this gullibility. If the evidence to that alternative claim is disputed, however, a debunker tends to get annoyed because their belief system in under attack.

I must say that calling this site 'metabunk' does not do it justice, because the debunkers in UFO history often pushed ridiculous alternative claims that did not even remotely fit the data, and they got away with it because both the press and scientists did not bother to check.
At least this site does a better job of checking their alternative claims against the data. Sometimes an old-school debunker pops up in the discussions with an outlandish claim and he is treated with healthy criticism by Mick as well, which is refreshing.

The data is there, for instance on http://www.nicap.org/onlinebooks.htm. Or read the French Cometa report, English translation available at https://www.narcap.de/dokumente/COMETA-Report-englisch.pdf

But you know what they say about bringing a horse to the water...

No, there's really no difference whatever between a skeptic and a debunker. Both take the scientific and logical position that the burden of proof is 100% on the person making a claim of something out of the ordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A skeptic isn't simply a 'disbeliever' or someone neutral...a skeptic is someone who says 'where is the actual evidence for your claim ?' and who looks for alternative explanations just as much as any debunker would do. ALL claims are 'bunk' by default unless sufficient evidence exists. That is how science works.

 

[jhunsley]

All have been debunked. None of them show anything remotely close to the bar as evidence of something which is not of this world.
We'll never know what exactly the FLIR and Gimbal video are because there is not enough information to identify them exactly. They are most likely other aircraft in the distance.

 

[SkepticSteve]

I honestly grew more skeptical after diving into the rabbit hole that any of these videos have been credibly debunked. GoFAST at best, but still it does not explain what the cold object actually is.

 

[Ulrich]

All have been debunked. None of them show anything remotely close to the bar as evidence of something which is not of this world.
We'll never know what exactly the FLIR and Gimbal video are because there is not enough information to identify them exactly. They are most likely other aircraft in the distance.

Maybe we will know some details in the future. Technical suppliers could solve the mystery about the glare- or object-rotation in the gimbal Video for example.

 

[Occam’sLawyer]

None have been debunked. There is no clear explanation as to what any of them are. They cannot be proven to be UFOs, and they cannot be proven to be birds, plastic bags, balloons, planes, or glitches.

 

[SkepticSteve]

None have been debunked. There is no clear explanation as to what any of them are. They cannot be proven to be UFOs, and they cannot be proven to be birds, plastic bags, balloons, planes, or glitches.

I have been listening to the audiobook of Ross Coulthart's "In Plain Sight" and he describes several occasions of UAPs being reported to make 45° degree rotations and then zipping off. Not saying this gives the Gimbal video much more credibility, but certainly, it fits in line with previously occurring sightings. And it certainly made me much more open to the idea that what is in the video is not just rotating glare.
.

 

[jarlrmai]

None have been debunked. There is no clear explanation as to what any of them are. They cannot be proven to be UFOs, and they cannot be proven to be birds, plastic bags, balloons, planes, or glitches.

What is debunked is the claims about the videos.

Go Fast is claimed to be low and fast, it is actually high and slow.
FLIR1 is supposed to show extraordinary acceleration, what it actually shows is a loss of tracking and a zoom which creates this effect.
Gimbal has other rotations of artefacts at the same time the object appears to rotate, indicating the rotation is a property of the camera system and not the object.

We don't have to identify something 100% to debunk the claims made about a video.

 

[Mendel]

Gimbal has other rotations of artefacts at the same time the object appears to rotate, indicating the rotation is a property of the camera system and not the object.

Don't forget the camera bumps synchronous with the rotations.

When the claim is, "this video shows A about the object B, therefore B must be a UFO", we don't need to disprove that B is a UFO; we merely need to prove that the video doesn't show A.

 

[taurusclover21]

I honestly grew more skeptical after diving into the rabbit hole that any of these videos have been credibly debunked. GoFAST at best, but still it does not explain what the cold object actually is.

You don't understand what debunked means.

 

[Agent K]

What is debunked is the claims about the videos.

Go Fast is claimed to be low and fast, it is actually high and slow.

We don't have to identify something 100% to debunk the claims made about a video.

But the poll was asking about a conventional explanation, not about debunking claims about the video.

I though I would create a poll to check what is the general opinion on this. From the three DOD Navy videos (Gimbal, GoFast, Nimitz), select the ones that you consider as debunked.

By debunked, I mean do you think there is a solid conventional, earthly, explanation for the footage ?
(I'm not talking about debunking aspects of the videos that have been pushed to the public, i.e. GoFast being close to the water)

 

[Mendel]

But the poll was asking about a conventional explanation, not about debunking claims about the video.

Yeah, but in that case, the poll sets a bad expectation.
You can't expect a 100% identification from a bunch of blurry pixels with unknown location and time, because there's simply not enough information to narrow it down from the dozens of perfectly normal explanations it could be. And that's even before we consider that the UAPs may have been military and we don't have public info on them to match them to a time and place. (If we had, the videos might not have gone public.)

So if you're asking for "debunked" in your question and then switch goalposts to say you really mean "identified" as if that was the same thing, you're setting a misleading expectation; and insisting that "debunked" means "debunked" no matter what the fine print says is a good stance to take.

 

[deirdre]

But the poll was asking about a conventional explanation, not about debunking claims about the video.

he edited that after we had all already responded. jarlmarl probably didnt (i never do) go back and recheck the OP)

 

[Leonardo Cuellar]

I have been listening to the audiobook of Ross Coulthart's "In Plain Sight" and he describes several occasions of UAPs being reported to make 45° degree rotations and then zipping off. Not saying this gives the Gimbal video much more credibility, but certainly, it fits in line with previously occurring sightings. And it certainly made me much more open to the idea that what is in the video is not just rotating glare.
.

Certainly not. But it reinforces the hypothesis that that movement is physically possible and therefore it is useless to debunk the movement by proposing implausible derotations or camera bumps.

 

[Mendel]

But it reinforces the hypothesis that that movement is physically possible

How? If we have data (aka a video) of such observations that do not show object rotation ot acceleration, then the obvious conclusion is that the similar reported observations have the same cause.It's certainly better supported to assume a cause that we have evidence for than to suppose a cause with no tangible evidence.

implausible derotations or camera bumps

They're not implausible, and the camera bumps are very obvious in the stabilized footage-
See e.g. the video in this post: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/fl...-refute-micks-claims.11933/page-2#post-255387

 

[Leonardo Cuellar]

How? If we have data (aka a video) of such observations that do not show object rotation ot acceleration, then the obvious conclusion is that the similar reported observations have the same cause.It's certainly better supported to assume a cause that we have evidence for than to suppose a cause with no tangible evidence.

I am very curious about all these testimonies, how many were made by an ATFLIR, observing the IR imprint of the exhaust gas and during the derotation phase. In your opinion?

They're not implausible, and the camera bumps are very obvious in the stabilized footage-
See e.g. the video in this post: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/fl...-refute-micks-claims.11933/page-2#post-255387

I've already voiced my doubts about bumps and derotation in that thread.

 

[SkepticSteve]

You don't understand what debunked means.

Of course, it means choosing your own adventure and fitting the facts to your beliefs.

Certainly not. But it reinforces the hypothesis that that movement is physically possible and therefore it is useless to debunk the movement by proposing implausible derotations or camera bumps.

Though, these sightings were as far as I recall not by fighter or civilian pilots. But instead from witnesses on the ground. I think what gives the Navy sightings more credibility is that allegedly corroborating data from additional sensor systems exist.

But is difficult to verify. And one should keep in mind that large organizations such as the Pentagon act mostly on grounds of plausible deniability. So any disclosed evidence is deliberately kept in an ambiguous quality such that one has the option to denounce it at any given future point of time.

 

[taurusclover21]

Of course, it means choosing your own adventure and fitting the facts to your beliefs.

Debunk: expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).

In the case of GOFAST, it doesn't mean to "explain what the cold object actually is."

 

[JMartJr]

In the case of GOFAST, it doesn't mean to "explain what the cold object actually is."

Similarly, it does not mean that for the other two! Gofast, it was claimed, was moving inexplicably fast. Flir1/Nimitz, it was claimed, made sudden impossible acceleration. Gimbal, it was claimed, executes an inexplicable weird rotation. But, as they say in football, "upon further review" there are plausible explanations for what is shown in each video that do not require extraordinary hypotheses: cameras rotate, or stop tracking, objects are higher than assumed so that parallax kicks in... and without being able to say "the videos show something that cannot be explained conventionally," there is nothing about the videos that is all that interesting.

 

[dimebag2]

Well these videos are interesting because they come from the military, with testimonies/stories by military personnel (Nimitz for FLIR, all the recent talk of fighter pilots seeing UFOs routinely for GoFast/Gimbal).

Whatever you believe is behind them (UFO/pilot errors/government disinformation) has interesting implications that makes them interesting (I think).

 

[Mendel]

interesting implications that makes them interesting

Sensors operated at the edge of their usefulness and beyond makes for blurry pictures straight from the "low information zone"; that's about as interesting as blurry photographs of Bigfoot.

Sure, it's interesting to think about that in a sense if you like fiction and drama (or debunking!), but it's thoroughly uninteresting if you want to learn about the real world.

 

[NoParty]

Well these videos are interesting because they come from the military...

After reading multiple prosaic explanations that are considerably more plausible than "unknown technology" claims...I can't say that I find any of these "interesting" at this point. The "military" angle you refer to may've made me give them a little more consideration than they deserved..but no, still not interesting...

 

[taurusclover21]

Well these videos are interesting because they come from the military, with testimonies/stories by military personnel (Nimitz for FLIR, all the recent talk of fighter pilots seeing UFOs routinely for GoFast/Gimbal).

Whatever you believe is behind them (UFO/pilot errors/government disinformation) has interesting implications that makes them interesting (I think).

I'm not interested in what's imagined to be "behind them," but only what they actually represent - which so far is nothing extraordinary.

 

[taurusclover21]

I'm not interested in what's imagined to be "behind them," but only what they actually represent - which so far is nothing extraordinary.

Why do you disagree, Woolery?

 

[Mendel]

Why do you disagree, Woolery?

You can generate a forum notification by using "@" to mention members, like this: @Woolery

 

[Woolery]

I'm not interested in what's imagined to be "behind them," but only what they actually represent - which so far is nothing extraordinary.

Why do you disagree, Woolery?

Though there’s no reason to think the videos represent space ships, I don’t think you can make the claim to know “what they actually represent,” anymore than the misguided folks who claim the videos represent something supernatural.

The reason these videos (and many others) receive the attention they do is due to their overwhelming ambiguity. Most UFO videos are so indistinct it’s impossible to know exactly what they actually represent and thus lead to rampant speculation.

(FYI- I saw your question due to Mendel’s tagging my name in his reply.)

 

[jarlrmai]

Though there’s no reason to think the videos represent space ships, I don’t think you can make the claim to know “what they actually represent,” anymore than the misguided folks who claim the videos represent something supernatural.

The reason these videos (and many others) receive the attention they do is due to their overwhelming ambiguity. Most UFO videos are so indistinct it’s impossible to know exactly what they actually represent and thus lead to rampant speculation.

(FYI- I saw your question due to Mendel’s tagging my name in his reply.)

So you do agree they represent nothing extraordinary then?

 

[Woolery]

So you do agree they represent nothing extraordinary then?

No. I said there’s no reason to think they represent something extraordinary. Can’t you see a difference there? (If you genuinely can’t, let me know and I’ll illustrate it in a follow up post or PM)

My first guess wouldn’t be space ships. But from what I can tell there’s not enough data to know for certain what they represent, and the poster I replied to stated he wasn’t interested in what the objects in the videos were “imagined” to be.

 

[jarlrmai]

No. I said there’s no reason to think they represent something extraordinary. Can’t you see a difference there? (If you genuinely can’t, let me know and I’ll illustrate it in a follow up post or PM)

My first guess wouldn’t be space ships. But from what I can tell there’s not enough data to know for certain what they represent, and the poster I replied to stated he wasn’t interested in what the objects in the videos were “imagined” to be.

Okay I think I get your minor semantic difference, but do you agree we are being asked by some parties to conclude that they do represent something extraordinary?

 

[Woolery]

Okay I think I get your minor semantic difference, but do you agree we are being asked by some parties to conclude that they do represent something extraordinary?

You flag my point as minor and semantic after you erroneously flag me for contradicting myself.

And I think everyone on earth (believers and skeptics alike) answers your question the same way. I credit you with the sense to know this already. Respectfully, I don’t want to waste anyone’s time arguing with you any longer, whether it’s in bad faith or over minor and semantic differences.

 

[taurusclover21]

Though there’s no reason to think the videos represent space ships, I don’t think you can make the claim to know “what they actually represent,” anymore than the misguided folks who claim the videos represent something supernatural.

The reason these videos (and many others) receive the attention they do is due to their overwhelming ambiguity. Most UFO videos are so indistinct it’s impossible to know exactly what they actually represent and thus lead to rampant speculation.

(FYI- I saw your question due to Mendel’s tagging my name in his reply.)

I didn't make any claim to know what these videos actually represent.

The reason these videos (and many others) receive the attention they do is that "UFOlogists" represent them to be something they imagine.

 

[Woolery]

I didn't make any claim to know what these videos actually represent.

I must have misunderstood then. I took you saying:

taurusclover21 said:
I'm not interested in what's imagined to be "behind them," but only what they actually represent - which so far is nothing extraordinary.

as meaning they (the videos) actually represent nothing extraordinary. It seemed to me you were making a statement about “what they actually represent.”

If you’re instead saying you don’t know what they actually represent then I’m in full agreement with you. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Woolery]

The reason these videos (and many others) receive the attention they do is that "UFOlogists" represent them to be something they imagine.

I would disagree slightly here. I’d say the attention the FLIR videos received was unusual and due largely to the New York Times article that detailed their context (without overtly asserting what the author “imagined” them to be), and the DoD confirming the origins of the footage but saying flatly that they didn’t know what the videos represented. This combination raised the profile of these videos far higher than the typical UFO images shared by “UFOlogists” over the decades.

 

[taurusclover21]

I must have misunderstood then. I took you saying:

taurusclover21 said:
I'm not interested in what's imagined to be "behind them," but only what they actually represent - which so far is nothing extraordinary.

as meaning they (the videos) actually represent nothing extraordinary. It seemed to me you were making a statement about “what they actually represent.”

If you’re instead saying you don’t know what they actually represent then I’m in full agreement with you. Sorry for any confusion.

A blurry image of something, even something unidentified, is not extraordinary.

 

[taurusclover21]

I would disagree slightly here. I’d say the attention the FLIR videos received was unusual and due largely to the New York Times article that detailed their context (without overtly asserting what the author “imagined” them to be), and the DoD confirming the origins of the footage but saying flatly that they didn’t know what the videos represented. This combination raised the profile of these videos far higher than the typical UFO images shared by “UFOlogists” over the decades.

The only reason FLIR received so much attention is that it was leaked as evidence of an ET.

 

[Woolery]

A blurry image of something, even something unidentified, is not extraordinary.

Yes. I think everyone agrees blurry images are common.