UAPs seen by pilots - shared by Ryan Graves

but it is unfair to demand that we only write for regular people, because then we would get nothing done

this is a thread about a starlink flare in a video. we have 35 other threads identical to it. after 35 threads i would think y'all would have had enough practice to simplify it for people. AND teach people HOW to research this stuff for themselves.

(ps. you did a beautiful job teaching El Nino how he [and others reading the thread] can look up future examples of dragons for himself! <and that's not sarcasm)

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)
again don't put words in my mouth. i never said "only".

and i dont expect everyone to abide by this, i dont think lil wabbit or fat phil could use everday vocabulary if their life depended on it.

and MB has never done it in secret before, but we had enough members who had the technical expertise to translate for the outside reader and they did so naturally because their target audience back then was reaching and teaching "people on the fence" . Mick learned how to do it:

Article:
I am particularly grateful to Deirdre, both for useful feedback on my communi-cation style,


It's not rocket science. It's just a matter of WHY one debunks and who their target audience is.

If the majority on MB dont care, then fine. I already admitted i'm a old dog and MB is a new animal now. I already conceded that Ryan Graves is no better than a cult leader or a twitter politician. Why are you still chiding me when i already agreed with the new Will of MB?
 
Last edited:
Deidre has a point with the politeness policy. I know some of these cases are insanely frustrating but any whiff of condescension shuts the outsider down and/or gives the claimant a handy distraction from information that may counter their claim.
 
Deidre has a point with the politeness policy. I know some of these cases are insanely frustrating but any whiff of condescension shuts the outsider down and/or gives the claimant a handy distraction from information that may counter their claim.
This forum is nothing compared to other forums. Here it is remarkably civil and well behaved, while in other places you either have malignant mods or just a plain insane user base.
Also, one does not have to become a member, just lurking and reading may be sufficient.

Threads easily become huge and some discussions difficult to follow. But so far, I am just taking my time to go "back in time" to find the root of the question or discussion. It is quite a challenge to make every page of such thread easily readable for people that have no clue about the background and I find it not fair to expect every entry in such thread to be "recapping" what has been discussed before.
 
I think threads would be easier for outsiders if there is a simplified explanation at the end (which does often happen). For long threads, perhaps periodic simplified posts would help. Or even for long, technical posts, try to include a few sentences of simplified language summarizing. Like @Ravi says, it's not realistic or fair for every post to have some summary included, but simplified summaries are certainly necessary at some point.

I don't think @Amathia was being purposely insulting.

In my day job, the work is very technical but eventually we have to present our work in simplified words to non-technical people. It is honestly hard to know when one becomes too technical, and nobody should be looked down on here for asking for a simplification.
 
.
This forum is nothing compared to other forums. Here it is remarkably civil and well behaved
I don't know, ive been looking at Reddit and some twitter lately (since apparently these are 'sources' now) and what i see is much more polite than MB has become. I know it's true because every 10-20 completely unnecessary insults to conspiracy theorists or conservatives, i post a parroting insult to the lefties/skeptics. Sometimes it works to jolt people into being polite for a day or two. Sometimes it doesnt.

I think threads would be easier for outsiders if there is a simplified explanation at the end (which does often happen).
at the beginning. the debunk for this thread (assuming readers are willing to watch a 7 min. video) is still in post #40 and the title is not so googleable.
 
The Starlink flares UFOs have been described in simple terms a while ago in a few different threads and several of Micks videos.

This thread is an specfic investigation thread into Ryan Graves video to see if it is Starlink, at the end of it the conclusion is, yes it very probably is Starlink which means the explanation is the same as the other Starlink flare videos.

It would be like in every it's a plane thread people were demanding we explained what a plane is and why they look less like a plane at great distance.

Basically Elon Musk launched thousands of giant mirrors (Starlink satellites) into space and every so often one of them catches the sun for second and you can see it if you are in the right place at the right time and looking in the right direction.
 
this is a thread about a starlink flare in a video. we have 35 other threads identical to it. after 35 threads i would think y'all would have had enough practice to simplify it for people.
But the number of threads is also a good argument for people to say "it's just Starlink again" (just as the familiar "it's only a balloon" response comes out frequently) rather than go through and simplify the same explanation once more.
 
Last edited:
Basically Elon Musk launched thousands of giant mirrors (Starlink satellites) into space and every so often one of them catches the sun for second and you can see it if you are in the right place at the right time and looking in the right direction.

see? that is beautiful and understandable.
 
But the number of threads is also a good argument for people to say "Ho-hum, it's just Starlink again" (just as the familiar "it's only a balloon" response comes out frequently) rather than just go through and simplify the same explanation once more.

I do think things like Starlink (and balloons, and bugs) should all have separate sub forums so
1.maybe the simple explanation OP could be pinned at the top of the subforum.
2. we can easily see just how many ARE starlinks vs balloons or birds etc.

I know most outside readers arent familiar with looking for forum baes, but at least we as debunkers can FIND the simple explanation thread and post it at the beginning of each new starlink thread and/or post them to twitter/reddit/youtube descriptions etc. Give readers a CHANCE to see this stuff.
 
I don't know, ive been looking at Reddit and some twitter lately (since apparently these are 'sources' now) and what i see is much more polite than MB has become. I know it's true because every 10-20 completely unnecessary insults to conspiracy theorists or conservatives, i post a parroting insult to the lefties/skeptics. Sometimes it works to jolt people into being polite for a day or two. Sometimes it doesnt.

I perceive MB as a rather high end forum, where strong rules apply and I am sure most agree, takes a while to get used to. I don't agree that on Reddit and X users are more polite. I think X might be ok, but Reddit is definitely not good..
 
I do think things like Starlink (and balloons, and bugs) should all have separate sub forums
No ...because each of these starts out as something unidentified, and often a thing upon which various explanations are given using multiple pieces of evidence, before (and IF) a conclusion is reached. We usually don't start out knowing what it is.
 
.
No ...because each of these starts out as something unidentified, and often a thing upon which various explanations are given using multiple pieces of evidence, before (and IF) a conclusion is reached. We usually don't start out knowing what it is.
you move there once it is debunked. not before, i didnt mean to imply that.
 
I already conceded that Ryan Graves is no better than a cult leader or a twitter politician. Why are you still chiding me when i already agreed with the new Will of MB?
That is an unwarranted insult, and I reported you for it when you made it earlier.

Mick's video cited above is 9 months old. If ASA, which Graves represents, can't identify this phenomenon still, they look incompetent. That's an opinion based on fact. ASA is a lobby organisation, lobbying for government disclosure of DoD secrets. That's also based on fact, a reading of their website. That leaves two obvious options for why they don't identify Starlink flares: either they can't, because they're not interested in learning how, or they won't, because it doesn't fit their political goals. Graves leads ASA and has to take responsibility for its failures.

And that's not an insult, it's a critique of their organisation. Kinda like a review of a play, it doesn't have to be friendly to be useful.

But your "cult leader and twitter politician" isn't a critique of anything because it connects to nothing. It's just an insult.
 
If ASA, which Graves represents, can't identify this phenomenon still, they look incompetent. That's an opinion based on fact. ASA is a lobby organisation, lobbying for government disclosure of DoD secrets. That's also based on fact, a reading of their website. That leaves two obvious options for why they don't identify Starlink flares: either they can't, because they're not interested in learning how, or they won't, because it doesn't fit their political goals. Graves leads ASA and has to take responsibility for its failures.
I already agreed/conceded to that.
 
But your "cult leader and twitter politician" isn't a critique of anything because it connects to nothing. It's just an insult.
yea. that's what i said. i like it when we agree.

I think I am the originator of the "cult leader and twitter politician" suggestion, as per my quote below. Note that I said "their position reminds me of" , not that I thought they were those things.

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.

For the record - I do not think Ryan Graves is a cult leader or a twitter politician.
 
I think I am the originator of the "cult leader and twitter politician" suggestion, as per my quote below. Note that I said "their position reminds me of" , not that I thought they were those things.

Thanks for clarifying that for him and his supporters.
 
Anyway - back on topic. Ryan Grave's story is now making UK press:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1803947/ufo-caught-on-camera-sightings-pictures-pilot

1692732712414.png

Mystery UFO caught on camera by stunned pilot who said it flew in random directions​

The pilot for a "major US carrier" has shared his extraordinary experience as theorists continue to seemingly build evidence about the existence of extraterrestrials.

A pilot has been left stunned after catching on camera what he claimed were mystery UFOs that illuminated and flew in random directions 32,000 feet above the ground. Ryan Graves, a retired Navy pilot who recently testified to Congress about the existence of UFOs, has taken to Twitter to share astonishing comments made by an unnamed "Major US Carrier Captain".

The pilot claimed others in their field have been in contact to share similar experiences of UFO sightings, including video recordings of the objects from "flight levels".

The unnamed Major US Carrier Captian explained how last month they had departed the Dominican Republic capital of Santo Domingo destined for JFK International Airport in New York.

But one hour into the flight on approach to the southern boundary of the NY oceanic airspace at 32,000 feet, the pilot "called out a visual on traffic that was excessively bright and looked like about 80 miles range... and then disappeared visually."

The extraordinary comments shared by Graves state: "I never saw the traffic on TCAS (traffic collision avoidance system). "Then a few minutes later I saw two objects round in shape, one lighted and one not flying in a formation just above the horizon, at a range I guessed of 120-200 NM.

"The object/s would illuminate to be as bright as a star for several seconds, then go dark for a few minutes, only to illuminate again."The brightness would vary from bright to very bright to dark. The colour of the lighted object was white light." There was a second object that can be seen in the photos the pilot took from their aircraft "that would follow the illuminated object, but it would not illuminate itself", except for the "3:10-3:30 second point of my video I think you can see the second object illuminate."

This allegedly continued for the remaining two to two-and-a-half hours of the flight to New York in Oceanic airspace. The pilot explains how they began recording the object on their brand new Samsung S23 smartphone "which has the best camera on the market for a cell phone".

The comments continue: "I have a great seven-minute video of it appearing and disappearing while I was talking to other airliners on 123.45 vhf about it. "You can hear that conversation in the video! Another airliner approximately 400 NM ahead of us at 36,000 feet stated they saw the same thing." The pilot explains how they also took around 30 photos of these objects in "night mode" on their smartphone, which "came out really good". "In one of them, you can actually see the lighted object and the unlit object very clearly as round metallic objects.

"All of the photos were taken with some sort of long exposure setting to be able to get as much light as possible to the sensor. "You will be able to see in the long exposure photos the stars are pins of light but the UFO's are streaks of light because they are moving! It is actually amazing!
"The light seemed to be on or just above the horizon until we got closer to our destination of NY. "Just prior to beginning our descent the objects appeared much higher in the sky 80-90 degrees above the horizon and much further away, actually out of the atmosphere."
 
I do think things like Starlink (and balloons, and bugs) should all have separate sub forums so
1.maybe the simple explanation OP could be pinned at the top of the subforum.
2. we can easily see just how many ARE starlinks vs balloons or birds etc.

I know most outside readers arent familiar with looking for forum baes, but at least we as debunkers can FIND the simple explanation thread and post it at the beginning of each new starlink thread and/or post them to twitter/reddit/youtube descriptions etc. Give readers a CHANCE to see this stuff.
i personally dont think thats a good idea and heres my argument:

one of the biggest critique points about metabunk or mick i have come across, is that "we" judge too fast and forcefully try to find evidence for a balloon plane or bird.

to us its clear why, its a probability funnel. it only makes sense to test the highest probability hypothesis first, then the second and so on.

outsiders or "believers" however will see all these threads organized into balloon, bird, plane etc and if there isnt a 100% bulletproof debunk, then their suspicion will immediately be confirmed.

and lets be honest, i would guess that the majority of cases are "its most likely this or that" instead of "its 100% clear" debunks

what could be a solution, is to have a short summary at the beginning of a thread, if we found an explanation. basically a sticky with a few ELI5 sentences and a link to a thread that explains it in more depth (for example why planes can look like a tic tac, with evidence etc).
 
Last edited:
.

I don't know, ive been looking at Reddit and some twitter lately (since apparently these are 'sources' now) and what i see is much more polite than MB has become.

Twitter is in no way more polite. The only reason some subreddits seem AS polite is because they are moderated well.
 
The pilot explains how they also took around 30 photos of these objects in "night mode" on their smartphone, which "came out really good". "In one of them, you can actually see the lighted object and the unlit object very clearly as round metallic objects.

"All of the photos were taken with some sort of long exposure setting to be able to get as much light as possible to the sensor. "You will be able to see in the long exposure photos the stars are pins of light but the UFO's are streaks of light because they are moving! It is actually amazing!
so which is it? Were they very clearly round metallic objects in the photos or were they streaks of light in the photos because of the long exposure night mode? It would seem hard to believe they were both.
 
so which is it? Were they very clearly round metallic objects in the photos or were they streaks of light in the photos because of the long exposure night mode? It would seem hard to believe they were both.
The quote seems like nonsense. One photo shows all lights, including the stars, as streaks. Another shows the stars streaky but the light in the big red circle is a pinpoint. So if anything, the pilot's quote is perfectly backward, and by their reasoning it's the stars that were UFOs. Just looks like different kinds of camera shake to me...
 
F31GlMTWEAMyORj Red removed.jpg

A couple of people in my YouTube comments said that the clouds look too bright, like they are lit by the sun. The obvious answer is that this is a long exposure - you can see stars - so it's night. The light must be ... the Moon?

But on July 23-24, 2023, the Moon was below the horizon at 0410 UTC.

So I went a hunting, and found another plane that's actually a better fit. JBU 2510, departed July 28, pushed back at around 11:05 locat time (03:05 UTC) )flying along L453, and arriving at BOREX at 4:43, just ahead of the projected time of 4:44.

2023-08-22_16-26-27.jpg

Also it's at 32,000 feet (matching the video), and the old one was at 34,000

Location does not change, as that's still 163NM from BOREX. The time is a bit different, at 04:24 UTC, and the date is now July 29 (+1 on local departure)

The stars now line up even better. And, based on the TLE from Flarkey, there's a widely spaced train crossing the FOV at that time.
2023-08-22_16-11-23.jpg

I'm 99% sure this is the correct flight.

Edit - Sitrec Permalink with KML and TLE: https://www.metabunk.org/u/0Vliq4.html

1714409616975.png
 

Attachments

  • FlightAware_JBU2510_MDSD_KJFK_20230728.kml
    32.1 KB · Views: 77
Last edited by a moderator:
So I went a hunting, and found another plane that's actually a better fit. JBU 2510, departed July 28, pushed back at around 11:05 locat time (03:05 UTC) )flying along L453, and arriving at BOREX at the expected time of 4:43.

Location does not change, as that's still 163NM from BOREX. The time is a bit different, at 04:24 UTC, and the date is now July 29 (+1 on local departure)

The stars now line up even better
where was the sun at that time?
 
With a sun elevation of -44° 53' the epicenter of the flares would be appearing at +0° 1' - practically on the horizon, so the flares would become visible as they emerge over the horizon at full brightness and then fade away. That must have looked really weird.
 
Interesting the sun seems to be at a low point, and I think as they continue north, it will get a little higher. They reported the sightings continuing.

I've not done much to check this though. Time for dinner!
 
I'm confused by this too Flarkey. I wrote Graves an email a while a go explaining this new phenomenon occurring from all these Starlink satellites being launched. Explaining from an amateur astronomers position and someone who's witnessed a UFO, how pilots are not accustomed to seeing these multiple flares and advising him to read these threads on Metabunk. I didn't get a response. Recently he posted something along the lines of "Starlinks are the new weather balloons", which to me suggests he's chosen to ignore the skills and experience of amateur astronomers. Do you think he's refusing to accept this explanation because it's coming from Mick West and Metabunk? I don't know who's feuding with whom on Twitter.
I think writing Graves with explanations for any of the stories he is pushing is a waste of time. Graves is refusing to acknowledge your email and explanation, because he has an agenda to push; We are being visited by aliens. If Graves acknowledges starlink flares as the likely explanation, he can't push this story as being of 'non human origin' on future podcasts, congressional hearings, and book deals.

Do you or anyone know if Graves has ever acknowledged an explanation either by metabunk or others and said, 'okay it probably wasn't aliens, or non human 'craft' beyond our capabilities?' thanks for your investigation? I would be really interested to know if he has.
 
The quote seems like nonsense. One photo shows all lights, including the stars, as streaks. Another shows the stars streaky but the light in the big red circle is a pinpoint. So if anything, the pilot's quote is perfectly backward, and by their reasoning it's the stars that were UFOs. Just looks like different kinds of camera shake to me...
The problem for me is that once someone starts saying things that ring like BS I stop listening and give little credibility to anything else they say. Like Grusch and his QM extra dimensions.
 
I think writing Graves with explanations for any of the stories he is pushing is a waste of time. Graves is refusing to acknowledge your email and explanation, because he has an agenda to push; We are being visited by aliens. If Graves acknowledges starlink flares as the likely explanation, he can't push this story as being of 'non human origin' on future podcasts, congressional hearings, and book deals.

Do you or anyone know if Graves has ever acknowledged an explanation either by metabunk or others and said, 'okay it probably wasn't aliens, or non human 'craft' beyond our capabilities?' thanks for your investigation? I would be really interested to know if he has.
No, I've not come across Graves addressing or countering the Starlink explanation in any detail. I'm still waiting for him to respond to Mick West's video, as it deserves a response. But if he doesn't, all we can do is wait and see if he continues to put out more Starlink videos, or if he's now learnt to be more cautious with future releases.

But to speculate on what agenda he might be pushing, I don't think it's to make the case these are extraterrestrial in origin, but to make a case that there's a threat to flight safety. In my opinion, he has very little to work with that shows there's a threat to air safety from craft with advanced capabilities. Once all the airborne clutter and foreign spying devices are eliminated from the equation, what's left? Very little. The Starlinks commercial pilots are reporting thus fit into his narrative, and I think he would rather ignore the boring mundane explanation in favor of building a case for a flight safety issue.
 
But to speculate on what agenda he might be pushing, I don't think it's to make the case these are extraterrestrial in origin, but to make a case that there's a threat to flight safety.

His ASA site is promoting a "UAP Guide" that is full of the old UFO mythology and conspiracy theories about recovered flying saucers.

If he were interested in safety he would be responding to the pilots with "it's just satellites - nothing to worry about" so they could concentrate on their job.
 
see? that is beautiful and understandable.
But does it work? Can you show me an example of that argument being made where the originator of the report has replied with something along the lines of "oh, yes, you're right,how silly of me. I promise I won't make such an unbased claim again"?
 
No ...because each of these starts out as something unidentified, and often a thing upon which various explanations are given using multiple pieces of evidence, before (and IF) a conclusion is reached. We usually don't start out knowing what it is.
If we're to believe the people who report such things, then all the Starlink threads belong in a "Definitely not Starlink" forum.
 
Once all the airborne clutter and foreign spying devices are eliminated from the equation, what's left? Very little. The Starlinks commercial pilots are reporting thus fit into his narrative, and I think he would rather ignore the boring mundane explanation in favor of building a case for a flight safety issue.

The utter irony here is that by ignoring the Starlink explanation they are directly making things less safe.

If we acknowledge they are Starlink, note the conditions they appear in and inform pilots what to look out for. Then when they see them they can actively be ignored and the pilots can get on with flying the plane.

By maintaining the mystery it encourages pilots to continue to expend time and effort try to get footage of them for "more research" adding to the mental workload for them.

It maintains the possibility that because we are not sure what they are/how far they are away etc that evasive action might be required, rather than them being pretty much ignorable because they are in space.
 
... inform pilots what to look out for. Then when they see them they can actively be ignored and the pilots can get on with flying the plane.

Absolutely - the good thing about our mundane explanation is that it's predictive; pilots can be told in advance when they are likely to see Starlink.
 
Back
Top