UAPs seen by pilots - shared by Ryan Graves

flarkey said:
For anyone, admitting you are wrong and changing your mind is difficult. This goes for UFO fans and skeptics alike. But I still can't quite fathom why they refuse to acknowledge any positive & evidence supported identification of these UAP/lights. Their position reminds me of politicians, or religious leaders, who see everything as a battle between their side (party/sect/group) and the other side (opposition party/evil/group). The other side can do no right - and that seems to be what Ryan and the #ufotwitter & /r/UFOs crowd are doing to Mick and @metabunk.
Click to expand...

maybe it's because Metabunk writes for each other, and regular people (non nerds) can't follow whatever the heck you guys are saying half (or more) of the time.

Y'all constantly assume outside readers are starting on the same page as you, and have been reading every thread on this topic for the last 2 years.

i just searched "starlink" to see if there would be a clear cut thread to read for the explanation (i'm not sure what to click on), so i click ed this link and a few posts down i see:
Mick West said:
That seems more like flares in Starlink trains, not on-station.
Click to expand...

what the hell is a "on station"? and ive been reading or skimming starlink threads for the past few years! and if its not a starlink train then why is it being brought up in a thread about starlink trains?

and it takes normal readers, unfamiliar with the topic, alot of effort to look at those demo graphics in that thread and grasp them. Assuming they even can. I can, but i've been practicing deciphering those things for 10 years now on MB.

Ryan Graves is a pilot, not a geek.

-----

I also am somewhat familiar with what i am supposed to be looking for regarding plane ids, and flight radar trail maps and even i thought JBUxxxx was a star or starlink! because "you" didnt write "flight #jbuxxx"

Mick West said:
That one, as it goes along L453
Click to expand...
Mick West said:
1692625722461.png
Click to expand...

seriously? "that one"? if you guys think normal readers will see this map and have any idea of what they are looking at you're all high. I even asked for clarification for the outside reader and was ignored.

then i scroll a bit more :
i see a bunch of pics of stars with no idea what im looking at or if it relates to the op footage.
i see a dashcam pic that locates the plane (that comment i was able to understand)
then i see a bunch of insults and pomposity
then some guy reposts the entire op i have to scroll past
now youre talking about UAPs vs Advance uaps

and because i'm still scrolling (how many outside readers are?), i get to post #40 which i assume has the answer to the op. except i click on it and i see its 7 mins and i dont want to watch 7 mins right now ...but i do click it assuming Mick will give me the answer relatively near the beginning but i hear him just giving me back story. I dont want to hear backstory so i stopped watching.

I guess i'll just have to take the titles word for it* that the tic tac is jbuxxx. and ill assume JBUxxxx is a star.
oh wait, the answer isnt even in the title.
 
deirdre said:
and because i'm still scrolling (how many outside readers are?), i get to post #40 which i assume has the answer to the op. except i click on it and i see its 7 mins and i dont want to watch 7 mins right now ...but i do click it assuming Mick will give me the answer relatively near the beginning but i hear him just giving me back story. I dont want to hear backstory so i stopped watching.
Click to expand...
You complain about not getting a thorough explanation, but then don't want to take the time to listen to one?

deirdre said:
i just searched "starlink" to see if there would be a clear cut thread to read for the explanation (i'm not sure what to click on), so i click ed this link and a few posts down
Click to expand...
I recommend clicking "Home" on the site navigation; this gets you to https://www.metabunk.org/home/ where you can find the topics that Mick has summarized the analysis for. Scroll through that, and you'll find "Why Racetrack UFOs are mostly Starlink Flares" https://www.metabunk.org/threads/why-racetrack-ufos-are-mostly-starlink-flares.12714/ , which iirc should explain the background and enable you to follow current discussions.
 
deirdre said:
seriously? "that one"? if you guys think normal readers will see this map and have any idea of what they are looking at you're all high. I even asked for clarification for the outside reader and was ignored.
Click to expand...

The thread is an investigation. A more accessible explanation often needs to be crafted later - which is why I do videos. It's tricky to strike a balance - a five minute video can take hours of work.

In the video, I highlight the route in a couple of ways, first showing the direct path:
2023-08-21_07-58-09.jpg


Then highlighting L453:

2023-08-21_07-58-55.jpg


Then showing the plane on that route:
2023-08-21_07-59-38.jpg


Then with a little animation of the positions in Google Earth.
2023-08-21_08-00-31.jpg


I'm quite sure a pilot like Graves can follow the video easily.
 
deirdre said:
i just searched "starlink" to see if there would be a clear cut thread to read for the explanation (i'm not sure what to click on), so i click ed this link and a few posts down i see:
Mick West said:
That seems more like flares in Starlink trains, not on-station.
Click to expand...
what the hell is a "on station"? and ive been reading or skimming starlink threads for the past few years!
Click to expand...
The first image in the first post of that thread is this:
View attachment 55216
Article:
Once the satellites reach their operational orbit of 550 km (340 mi), known as the "on-station" phase, only certain parts of the chassis can reflect light.

deirdre said:
and if its not a starlink train then why is it being brought up in a thread about starlink trains?
Click to expand...
because Ann didn't know what it was, and asked.
you, however, chose to complain instead of asking.

Starlink satellites are shot into space by a rocket that unloads a bunch of them. They're not as high as they need to be, so they undergo an "orbit raise" phase. In this phase, they're initially close together, forming a chain known as "Starlink train" that reflects sunlight fairly well.

Once they have reached their target orbit, the satellites are "on station", and you can only see them well if the viewing angle is just right. Typically, the sun needs to be right below the satellite, obstructed by the planet Earth, ca. 40⁰ below the horizon. Since the Starlink satellites are now more spread out, we see them enter and leave the "bright spot" one by one. This has become known as a "racetrack flare", as it may give the impression of a single light going in circles.

To confirm a racetrack flare, the following must align:
• viewer position
• sun position (ca. 40⁰ below horizon)
• satellite position a little above the horizon, above the sun

 
Last edited:
Mick West said:
which is why I do videos.
Click to expand...
and link then in post #40

my point is, people in this thread are comparing people who dont "accept the starlink debunks" to televangelists, nasty politicians and non scientific people.

when they probably just arent looking a them. (but just ignore my input and carry on doing whatever y'all think you are doing)
 
deirdre said:
maybe it's because Metabunk writes for each other, and regular people (non nerds) can't follow whatever the heck you guys are saying half (or more) of the time.
Click to expand...

maybe, but I have always found Mick's explanatory YouTube videos to be very simple to understand. The general public are more likely to see one of his videos than read through a whole thread. They are often inserted at the beginning of a thread once an investigation is concluded. I agree that some of these discussions on here are very niche. There are many points and statements made that I don't understand.
 
deirdre said:
and link then in post #40

my point is, people in this thread are comparing people who dont "accept the starlink debunks" to televangelists, nasty politicians and non scientific people.

when they probably just arent looking a them. (but just ignore my input and carry on doing whatever y'all think you are doing)
Click to expand...
The people who "just aren't looking at them" have made it their job to analyse UAPs, are scientists or have scientists at their disposal, and have been personally pointed at these explanations.

They also complain about AARO not doing its job and ignoring evidence (which, for all I know, is unfounded).
 
Mendel said:
and have been personally pointed at these explanations.
Click to expand...

well since you are the superior intellect and always right, then i'm sure they did obey and trudged through the muck of pompous language and insults to find those explanations.

i stand corrected.
 
As a long time amateur astronomer ( since the early 70s ) I've seen many satellite flares. Iridium satellites ( largely phased out....they were the pre-decessor to Starlink. There were 99 of them ) could sometimes reach an amazing magnitude -9.....which is 100 times or so brighter than Venus. That was a rarity and generally the max was around -7 and the range from -1 to -4 was most common. Stellarium used to until quite recently list Iridum flares in advance and in the UK one could easily get one or two flares listed every day. So not at all uncommon.

Which then raises the question. Iridium began back in 1997. I think all their orbits have now decayed. But given that Iridium flares were generally much brighter than Starlink ( which generally flares around -2 magnitude ) its not like the phenomenon of satellite flares began with Starlink in 2019. UFO reports going back as far as the late 90s could be flares....especially the exceptionally bright Iridium flares.
 
Mick West said:
The thread is an investigation. A more accessible explanation often needs to be crafted later - which is why I do videos. It's tricky to strike a balance - a five minute video can take hours of work.
Click to expand...
I think you should send your explanatory video(s) to Graves (perhaps after removing any comments about him) and to others concerned in the matter.
 
deirdre said:
Ryan Graves is a pilot, not a geek.
Click to expand...

My father, a career USAF fighter pilot was quite geeky, and quite the critical thinker. His fellow pilots used to ask him what the hell he was doing flying jets in the Air Force when he could have been a doctor or engineer. My brother, on the other hand - a retired and US Navy Pilot with the rank of Commander -- to this day is routinely described by his wife as "the dumb blonde" in our family! :)

Years ago when I almost joined the Navy to fly, this brother -- then active duty Navy -- warned me away from the Navy telling me "The ranks are filled with ass kissers and back stabbers" some of whom only got high up in the ranks by kissing the right ass or stabbing the right back. "You're too smart for this." he often said.

I've been around flying much of my life. One of the very best civilian airline pilots I know is also one of the most ignorant people I know. For real.

UFO true believers frequently cite military pilot status and rank as some kind of foregone proof of infallibility. I've never stopped laughing at that idea. It's a very mixed bag, representative of society in general. Make no assumptions.
 
deirdre said:
and link then in post #40

my point is, people in this thread are comparing people who dont "accept the starlink debunks" to televangelists, nasty politicians and non scientific people.

when they probably just arent looking a them. (but just ignore my input and carry on doing whatever y'all think you are doing)
Click to expand...
Ryan Graves isn't Joe Public. He bills himself as an investigator and it appears to me that he is dismissing detailed methods for identifying Starlink sightings out of hand. "They probably just aren't looking at them" may be true but it is an indictment on his credibility if that is the case. He doesn't need to wade through a geek thread at metabunk to avail himself of these tools for investigating sightings. Same goes for Jeremy 29 Palms Corbells.
 
deirdre said:
Ryan Graves is a pilot, not a geek.

-
Click to expand...
As a pilot he should easily understand aviation navigation charts. Maybe the explanatory video can front load with the explanation of the phenomenon for people that don't want to watch or click past the back story. But the explanation seems non-technical to me. I'm a biologist and not and engineer or a pilot.
 
deirdre said:
i'm not clicking that. ill go linked in and check myself


https://www.linkedin.com/in/whygraves/
View attachment 61778
Click to expand...
wtf, you asked for a link then say that you are not clicking that?

btw I know what deirdre means. kind of. if someone is primed already against metabunk or mick or is lacking significant knowledge then its quite hard for them to keep up and eventually "get on board".

i think mr graves would definitely understand the reasoning and explanations but he probably just refuses to do a deep dive and read through multiple pages that often inhibit statements that can seem a bit arrogant or condescending towards outsiders - especially if this outsider is already primed.

now, as stated already this forum is mainly for investigative purposes and the videos are the conclusions of the findings targeted to outsiders. i also think mick is doing a great job and keeping these videos neutral and fact based. in the recent video were a few jabs towards mr graves but he basically started it first so hey, fair play.

that being said, i definitely understand what deirdre means when she says we cant just assume that even people like graves have the same knowledge as us (for the reasons stated above).

does this mean we should change something? i dont think so but we also shouldnt be surprised or that others wont or cant keep up with the investigation work and maybe even wont watch the videos.

if we wanna convince others than we need to connect with them, in order to connect with them we need to understand them and their POV.
 
Last edited:
Domzh said:
but he probably just refuses to do a deep dive and read through multiple pages that often inhibit statements that can seem a bit arrogant or condescending towards outsiders
Click to expand...
not only that but if you dont trust the posters, then you need to know how to go and fact check all these things members are posting. yea i can do all the annoying time conversions to determine a possible flight route and yea i know L459 probably means latitude or longitude.. but stellarium forget it. ive tried it before! its a beast :)
 
taurusclover21 said:
"I am a formally trained (aerospace) engineer..." - Ryan Graves

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/28/ufo-uap-navy-intelligence-00084537
Click to expand...
No idea about reliability, but these guys support his claim with cool new details:
External Quote:
Ryan Graves, 37, is a former lieutenant in the U.S. Navy. Originally from Baldwinville, he graduated from Narragansett Regional High School in 2004 and earned a bachelor's degree in mechanical and aerospace engineering from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in 2008.
-- https://eu.telegram.com/story/news/...tleblower-has-central-mass-roots/70470688007/

Of course, they may have scraped LinkedIn. Journalists aren't always experts in being journalists any more.
 
Domzh said:
wtf, you asked for a link then say that you are not clicking that?
Click to expand...
Because it's not a link to the resource being referred to, it's a link shortener service.
(I'd love to see what Elon Musk might do to a service like that, after purchasing it in a fit of whatever he has fits of - it could be hilarious!)
 
FatPhil said:
Because it's not a link to the resource being referred to, it's a link shortener service.
(I'd love to see what Elon Musk might do to a service like that, after purchasing it in a fit of whatever he has fits of - it could be hilarious!)
Click to expand...
he'll embed a 'trojan'? and well all have our screensavers turned to big black Xes !

(my security software let me go to a ufo site yesterday and i spent half an hour this morning getting rid of the spam that kept popping up trying to trick me into giving them my credit card, smh)
 
Domzh said:
does this mean we should change something? i dont think so but we also shouldnt be surprised or that others wont or cant keep up with the investigation work and maybe even wont watch the videos.

if we wanna convince others than we need to connect with them, in order to connect with them we need to understand them and their POV.
Click to expand...
It is understandable that someone who makes a public statement might then take offense if he is contradicted. But, this being a debunking site, not a public relations endeavor, we should continue with doing what we do, not curtail any of our activities for fear of hurting feelings. That, essentially, is what the politeness policies aim for, but that's best considered "politeness while demonstrating their errors".
 
Article:
Most URL shorteners—including those used at U-M—include a preview feature. If you aren't sure it is safe, don't click!

tinyurl.com. Between the "http://" and the "tinyurl," type preview.
Example: http://preview.tinyurl.com/zn7xnzu

deirdre said:
yea i can do all the annoying time conversions to determine a possible flight route and yea i know L459 probably means latitude or longitude..
Click to expand...
From the sighting report:
External Quote:
My route of flight was L453 in NY Oceanic airspace, non radar hundreds of miles offshore.
L453 is like a sky highway, and there are "sky roadmaps" of them. Review https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uaps-seen-by-pilots-shared-by-ryan-graves.13120/post-299158 , it'll help you find it. It's also marked on Mick's map.

And again, I recommend asking questions if you want to get the most out of this forum.
Or to re-read posts.
On Metabunk, crucial information is often posted only once. Many people need to see it more than once to assimilate all of it. One way to get these repeats is to ask questions, another is to re-read. (I know it often helps me out, sometimes on my own posts.)
 
Mendel said:
The first image in the first post of that thread is this:
View attachment 55216
Article:
Once the satellites reach their operational orbit of 550 km (340 mi), known as the "on-station" phase, only certain parts of the chassis can reflect light.


because Ann didn't know what it was, and asked.
you, however, chose to complain instead of asking.
Click to expand...

You're being unnecessarily dismissive of Deirdre's feedback about how threads like these are perceived by outsiders, and she's not even an outsider. Finding the answer to what we're looking at in a video is one thing, being able to communicate it in a way that's digestible to someone who has no training and no experience with these things is a whole different kettle of fish. Instead of being hostile to someone telling you "hey, this is all pretty hard to follow, and I've been reading threads like these for years, the people who need to read this information the most have probably all tuned out by now, can we maybe break this down so it's easier to follow and understand?", maybe consider what Deirdre is saying as useful feedback to become a better communicator of complex ideas instead. There's no need to be so dismissive.
 
We've had this debate before, we are unpaid technically minded volunteers at the start of a technical investigation fitting in bits and pieces of analysis as we can with our jobs/lives, not all of us can be technically minded AND good at communication, nor do we have the time to make every post both technically accurate and describable to laypersons and sometimes we goof off etc.

Mick's videos generally take the outcome of threads and present it publically, but they take time and effort to make, time and effort Mick can often dedicate because he is retired.

These threads are here for people to see the process of working out/the mistakes/the half-baked ideas that may or may not go somewhere, so anyone out there can come along and provide correction/input etc.

We've discussed if people wanted platforms and separation and hidden work whilst in the technical stage and then a thread here which "Goes Public" once things are mostly decided upon and people did not want that, this is the factory floor and you are seeing the sausage being made, in public, by a bunch of unpaid volunteers fitting it in as and when they can.
 
deirdre said:
maybe it's because Metabunk writes for each other, and regular people (non nerds) can't follow whatever the heck you guys are saying half (or more) of the time.
Click to expand...
I want to make this super clear
this is a discussion forum, and you don't need to be a nerd to participate
if you participate, we will write for you at your level
if you don't, you have to wait for Mick to make a video

deirdre, you know all this, because others and I have explained many things to you in the past
to imply we would not write for regular people is an insult
but it is unfair to demand that we only write for regular people, because then we would get nothing done
(or we would have to do it in secret—not a great idea when a large part of our clientele is conspiracy theorists)
basically, metabunk is a workshop for general science
pick up your hard hat when you enter, but don't be afraid
Amathia said:
You're being unnecessarily dismissive of Deirdre's feedback about how threads like these are perceived by outsiders, and she's not even an outsider.
Click to expand...
Deirdre does not speak for herself, and that makes it impossible to address her grievances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Eburacum
UAPs / Flares in Manitoba
Replies
2
Views
321
Eburacum
Eburacum
ManInBlack
Unidentified object, departing Logan Intl Airport USA - February 12th 2024
Replies
10
Views
2K
Easy Muffin
Easy Muffin
MonkeeSage
Lights in the sky seen from Baltimore, Maryland, July 17th 2024
Replies
27
Views
1K
Scaramanga
Scaramanga
J
What Did I Film, Looking East from Norway?
Replies
7
Views
1K
jtorp
J
P
Can you identify this?
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
deirdre
deirdre

Latest posts

Back
Top