TFTRH #23: Ian/TheoryQED: UFOs, Government Cover-ups, and Alien Visitors.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Source: https://youtu.be/qwWVlhnhF1M

Ian goes by the name @TheoryQED on Metabunk and his YouTube Channel, where he posts about UFOs. Unlike me, and definitely unlike my last guest (Seth Shostak), Ian thinks there’s something highly significant to the UFO phenomenon, maybe even alien visitors. Like most Americans, he also suspects the government is not telling us everything it knows.

Some of our disagreements have been about three videos that have been in the news recently: “Go Fast”, “Gimbal,” and “Flir1”. The latter is particularly interesting as there are a large number of eyewitnesses from the Nimitz Carrier strike group who report a variety of odd events and sightings surrounding that videos – like Commander Fravor’s “Tic-Tac” incident.

We also have a nice chat about UFOs in general and the possibility (or probability) of visiting aliens.


Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...rnment-cover-ups/id1462120258?i=1000450778014
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
At the 40 min mark he is dissing on fairies and bigfoot. he says ufos are verified, and 'officially acknowledged' by the military and the President has been briefed. etc. well, la-de-da.

Now I don't believe in Bigfoot, but I do watch basically every show and movie about them ( because I like the woods, it's a calming setting).

Its not fair to equate Bigfoot with UFOs and dismiss Bigfoot. The military doesn't care about Bigfoot. Russia and China aren't possibly sending Bigfoots to America to attack us or spy on us. Why would the President need to be briefed on an animal in the swamps of Louisiana?

And of course UFOs are real because it's a silly all encompassing name. If we started calling Bigfoots UTTs (Unidentified Terrestrial Things) then we'd have to admit UTTs are real too. Obviously UTTs are real, or we wouldn't have a bunch of Bigfoot sightings.

ET UFOs and Bigfoot are the exact same thing. So you see a stump in the woods far away and think its something dark and hairy crouching behind a tree then you hear something to your right so you glance away, then you look back to the "stump" area but you can't find the 'stump' again and a squirrel at that time and approximate location happens to go running off through the low tree branches so you assume the movement is bigfoot running away.

Or you see and misidentify a bear. or a guy in a ghilly suit.

Anyway, UTT sightings are primarily real. Very experienced/expert hunters and woodmen give testimony that shouldn't be assumed 'crazy'. Plus Bigfoot involves sight, sound (hoots, tree knocking), smell (he stinks they say), interactions (he throws rocks at people they say), hair, footprints. UFOs don't have all that.

Just saying.
 

TheoryQED

Member
Its not fair to equate Bigfoot with UFOs and dismiss Bigfoot.
It's not fair to equate something with almost no evidence to something with overwhelming evidence. You don't think the government would be interested in a gigantic primate inside our nation? The FBI investigated bigfoot. We care about protecting endangered species, and that would be a tremendous scientific discovery. I believe in Bigfoot too, but that's all it is, a belief. It's not a belief that can be justified with credible evidence that doesn't have a prosaic explanation. All UTTs sightings can be bears. Not all UFOs can be birds and balloons. Give me an explanation for JAL1628 and Washington D.C. 1952 that isn't simultaneous mass hallucination at the same time and place as hypersonic intelligently controlled radar glitches and then maybe we can talk more about Bigfoot vs. UFOs.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
The FBI investigated bigfoot.
https://www.history.com/news/bigfoot-fbi-file-investigation-discovery
 

TheoryQED

Member
To be clear, I was not insinuating that they found any evidence. You said the government wouldn't care about UTTs, but the FBI investigated Bigfoot. I know that they didn't find anything, that was my point in fact. There isn't any credible evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

You linked the History channel, and clicking the links in your quote takes me to Blue Book which I disputed in the discussion with Mick West... and the other link shows the updated UAP reporting guidelines for the Navy. Obviously if they are revising the reporting protocols then UAPs are indeed real.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Obviously if they are revising the reporting protocols then UAPs are indeed real.
You might want to define "real" in this context again. Or not use the word at all. Can you rephrase that without "real" or synonyms? Like: "UAPs are indeed something that pilots see"
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
Give me an explanation for JAL1628 .....that isn't simultaneous mass hallucination
I don't see report of a simultaneous hallucination. The other two crew members only saw "lights" from my quick brief reading. Perhaps you can start a thread on that and present your evidence in full.
https://skepticalinquirer.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2014/11/p19.pdf
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
To be clear, I was not insinuating that they found any evidence. You said the government wouldn't care about UTTs, but the FBI investigated Bigfoot. I know that they didn't find anything, that was my point in fact. There isn't any credible evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.
I know, you were insinuating they investigated and didn't find any proof of Bigfoot. But they didn't really "investigate", they only analyzed 15 hairs 40 years ago.

There isn't any credible evidence for ET UFOs either. I'm not being mean, I honestly don't see the difference between what you call ET UFO evidence and Bigfoot evidence I've seen.
 

TheoryQED

Member
You might want to define "real" in this context again. Or not use the word at all. Can you rephrase that without "real" or synonyms? Like: "UAPs are indeed something that pilots see"
Sure I can try, how's this?
"UAPs are something that pilots and radar operators encounter frequently enough to require a new set of updated reporting guidelines, and it is important enough to require classification."

Or if you'd like me to lengthily define what I mean by, "real" I would say- "UAPs objectively exist and it is not a matter of opinion or belief, but rather their existence is supported by tangible evidence, verifiable data from multiple sensors, and many credible witnesses. UAPs have been the topic of classified briefings for both Congress and the President of the United States of America which would not happen if they were unreal, imagined, or fictitious."
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
Or if you'd like me to lengthily define what I mean by, "real" I would say- "UAPs objectively exist and it is not a matter of opinion or belief, but rather their existence is supported by tangible evidence, verifiable data from multiple sensors, and many credible witnesses. UAPs have been the topic of classified briefings for both Congress and the President of the United States of America which would not happen if they were unreal, imagined, or fictitious."
I don't think anyone on earth is debating that. the debate comes when you call UAP's extraterrestrial.

UTTs are real too.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
UAPs have been the topic of classified briefings for both Congress and the President of the United States of America which would not happen if they were unreal, imagined, or fictitious."
If pilots operating F-35's were consistently hallucinating or mistaking birds for aircraft, then wouldn't that be a national security issue warranting classified briefing?
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
Did I call them extraterrestrial?
I apologize then. It never occured to me someone would do a podcast to say "yea sometimes we see things we cant identify because they are too blurry or too far away and sometimes they are in the sky".

Although in my defense 2 mins after your Bigfoot dissing you launch into the history of alien/ET belief.
 

TheoryQED

Member
If pilots operating F-35's were consistently hallucinating or mistaking birds for aircraft, then wouldn't that be a national security issue warranting classified briefing?
That's a fair point and I agree. However that would be interesting if this sort of thing had been happening since WW2 until present day. And in my opinion it wouldn't fully explain the ground observations and radar tracks because birds have much smaller signatures typically, and don't change altitude in 0.78 seconds at 24,000 mph or descend from 80,000 ft above sea level. I admit that we don't have a good explanation or understanding of UAPs yet, and that's precisely why the US Navy thinks that they are worth further investigation and I think they warrant additional serious scientific study, even if it really is just nothing more than birds and hallucinations and radar glitches.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
I admit that we don't have a good explanation or understanding of UAPs yet,
see sentences like this are confusing. we do have good explanations for a ton of UAPs. SO perhaps better to say something like "there are still some UAPs we don't have good explanations for..."


I also don't find (although MB search kinda sucks) anything about JAL1628 being B52s on this site. Perhaps you're just confusing different things you read.
 

TheoryQED

Member
I apologize then. It never occured to me someone would do a podcast to say "yea sometimes we see things we cant identify because they are too blurry or too far away and sometimes they are in the sky".

Although in my defense 2 mins after your Bigfoot dissing you launch into the history of alien/ET belief.
More like, "There's something in the sky seen visually and with cameras, and there are hypersonic radar tracks that we can't explain."

In my defense I didn't launch into the history of alien/ET belief. I was asked to talk about the UFO "conspiracy" so I talked about the documented and factual history of the cover-up of UAPs, that also continues until present day. You can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think the only things I said about ET was that Major Keyhoe claimed he had a letter from the Air Force that said UFOs are extraterrestrial, and then I asked Mick West if he thought that interstellar travel was a possibility and why some science promoters deny that possibility so determinedly.

ET is one possible explanation for UFOs, but it is not the only one, and we don't have evidence to prove it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I also don't find (although MB search kinda sucks) anything about JAL1628 being B52s on this site. Perhaps you're just confusing different things you read.
In my opinion this is not a case of eyewitness not seeing what was there . . . what were they seeing a stealth bomber? What?
I don't think George was really making a serious suggestion there.
 

TheoryQED

Member
see sentences like this are confusing. we do have good explanations for a ton of UAPs. SO perhaps better to say something like "there are still some UAPs we don't have good explanations for..."

I also don't find (although MB search kinda sucks) anything about JAL1628 being B52s on this site. Perhaps you're just confusing different things you read.
Ok. There are UAPs that we don't have any explanation for and that remain completely unexplained even with a strong amount of credible evidence in each particular unexplained case. This is a true statement that cannot be argued with or attacked semantically, so thanks for the correction/improvement.

Just search "JAL 1628" there's only one thread and it mentions a stealth bomber which can be found on a lot of other sites too. It would be a B-2 not a B52.
 
Last edited:

TheoryQED

Member
I don't think George was really making a serious suggestion there.
I thought he was.

Like randomly buzzing cargo jets?
To which George B replied-
Dan Wilson said-
And then their conversation about stealth craft continued on the next page. I apologize if I misinterpreted this thread or suggestion in any way. I honestly looked at it for only 30 seconds and thought it was a ridiculous explanation so I left the page.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
I apologize if I misinterpreted this thread or suggestion in any way.
No prob. George was arguing for aliens. But I know that because I know George :)

I thought a stealth bomber was those triangle things. and I thought you said B52. But just relistening and you do say
B-2. so my mistake there too.
 

TheoryQED

Member
No prob. George was arguing for aliens. But I know that because I know George :)

I thought a stealth bomber was those triangle things. and I thought you said B52. But just relistening and you do say
B-2. so my mistake there too.
Ok but disregarding aliens, the stealth bomber was a serious suggestion, correct? B-52 is a much larger airplane called the Stratofortress and it is not stealth. A B-2 is stealth and it's a flying wing or triangle shape.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
@TheoryQED it was a very pleasant podcast to listen to, by the way. Good rational conversation from both sides. I appreciate you taking the time. I enjoyed it.
 

JohnP

New Member
When a UFO apparently carries out hypersonic manoeuvres, is the question of (missing) sonic booms ever addressed?

Edit: Most of my thoughts on the matter turned out to be addressed near the 47-minute mark of the video.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
F-18's. Why F-35's?
More expensive. I was emphasizing the point that what a military pilot thinks they see can have significant consequences, even if they are just hallucinating. Although F-18s are pretty expensive too.
 

jarlrmai

Member
Ok but disregarding aliens, the stealth bomber was a serious suggestion, correct? B-52 is a much larger airplane called the Stratofortress and it is not stealth. A B-2 is stealth and it's a flying wing or triangle shape.
Whilst much longer and a bit heavier a B52's wingspan is only 4m longer than a B2 and because of the flying wing design the B2 has a larger wing area as well.
 
F-18's. Why F-35's?
As a coincidental aside, even if Mick West had selected the aircraft type randomly (which it seems is the case), the F-35 has suffered from some pressurization issues. Coming on the heels of the F-22 oxygen problems, if your F-35 pilots are hallucinating or otherwise suffering from performance problems, you're going to listen.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As a coincidental aside, even if Mick West had selected the aircraft type randomly (which it seems is the case), the F-35 has suffered from some pressurization issues. Coming on the heels of the F-22 oxygen problems, if your F-35 pilots are hallucinating or otherwise suffering from performance problems, you're going to listen.
I picked it because it was expensive, but also it's something that has congressional attention because of all the problems it has been having. I would unsurprised if some of those problems are false radar tracks or false synthesized indicators of some kind.

Point being - UFOs of the banalest kind could require congressional hearings.
 

Agent K

Active Member
I picked it because it was expensive, but also it's something that has congressional attention because of all the problems it has been having. I would unsurprised if some of those problems are false radar tracks or false synthesized indicators of some kind.

Point being - UFOs of the banalest kind could require congressional hearings.
My point was that there's no reason to bring hypothetical F-35 pilots into this when we have actual F-18 pilots.
 
Top