The author ignores what many find most compelling about those videos. Namely, the domain experts (navy pilots) who filmed the videos and discussed them at length[1].
I think you are referring to the "Trained Observer." I feel like this was already debunked that many trained observers have been discovered to be wrong about many sightings. I'm happy to be wrong though so please cite anything to correct me.
You are asking the op to prove a negative. You are making the claim that this is a "Trained Observer" which has been debunked, the burden of evidence has fallen to you to show that it has been debunked. Op can't exactly cite something saying that it has not been debunked. They cited a video with evidence and people who have some large authority on things in the air.
I've known a few Navy pilots. I absolutely defer to them in all questions regarding keeping a plane in the air, getting it safely on and off the ground, and denying those capabilities to others. On questions of what a weird thing they saw in the sky might be, I give their knowledge just about as much weight as anyone who sees a weird thing in the sky.
The first thing we teach pilots is that they have to get comfortable with the fact that their eyes play tricks on them in flight. Our visual perception wasn't tuned for high speeds, high altitudes, and truly three-dimensional relationship assessment, and they're as prone to misinterpretation of things they didn't train on as everyone else is. If they say "That blob is a fighter-jet near the horizon's edge," I believe them; but if they say "I think that blob is a space alien," I don't because nobody knows what a space alien looks like (and "That doesn't look like anything I know" still doesn't imply "space alien").
I don't think this is accurate - "navy pilots" are domain experts in operation of navy aircraft.
What you are maybe getting confused here is that the three examples in the article are actually part of several domains, each of which is very different from aviation expertise.
The domains we're talking about include topics such as optical physics, radar physics (transmitters & receivers), optical sensor technology (and attendant physics), and digital processing including chipset hardware and software stack (and implementation of specific physics). Each of these are their own 'domain', which is important here because faulty implementation in any one of them can lead to such anomalies.
In general, navy pilots do not have that expertise, though I would very much like to hear the opinions of a navy pilot that is indeed 'expert' with all of these 'domains'.
getting a degree in aeronautics is not like passing a driving exam or heavy machinery license.
though I reject analyses that lean towards LGM, i recognise that people flying these aircraft have necessarily demonstrated enough advanced math and physics competency to understand well the boundary between known vs inexplicable physical phenomena. they are either deliberately ignoring their own training or else have some undiagnosed amnesia, instigated by sudden exposure to celebrity status.
Not to mention that Nimitz/TicTac was detected and tracked by multiple different systems from different sources. Ship-based radar, aircraft-based radar (of multiple aircraft) as well as FLIR.
I'm not a true believer by any means, but the claims are much more compelling than this post gives them credit for.
I can confirm for anyone interested that pilots, Navy or otherwise, can also be cranks. They lie, misinterpret, and make mistakes at the same rate as the rest of the population. There is no special moral code issued to you in flight school.
I've seen pilots with their head down in the targeting system saying some really really silly things that were obviously wrong when they got their eyes up and got some SA.
Yeah pilots can totally be wrong. I was once an engineer in flight test, and pilots are your endusers and can speculate all sorts of weird stuff. They are not engineers. That said, in this particular case, the fact that the pilots admitted to joking around / pranks in the past adds credibility. If they were dishonest, they would have tried to conceal this in their past.
I would absolutely not consider them domain experts on anything that's not directly related to flying a jet.
People tend to fall back on these videos as "expert proof" as if military witnesses are more reliable in some way... but they're not at all experts on atmospheric phenomenon, optics, UFOs, or a multitude of other things that could potentially explain these. When it comes to what they're seeing here the expertise ends at "not a plane"
Well, in ten years when the cameras and radars are much improved, we'll be able to identify these things, right? Everybody in such a rush, why not just wait and see?
Whomever the witness, the fact remains; they are unidentified.
By definition there’s low information. Where I grew up there was a ton of 1980s UFO sightings, generating lots of speculation. Later, we learned they were test Tomahawk cruise missiles that used to develop their terrain navigation system.
Not just the navy pilots. USAF has files going back to 1946. My uncles were on the staff of the blue book project. General Joseph D Moore.
They are indeed real, UFOs, but that’s where it ends. We know of several different kinds, but we know not of their origin or how they work. Or at least that information is still sealed. The pentagon knows. Maybe not their communications department but the top brass knows, or at least has access to, the blue book files.
There are no UFOs in the sense of alien or off-world intelligence. UFOs are created by humans to describe things they can't identify in the moment.
The Joe Rogan Experience video is such speculation that I cannot take any of it as fact. He jumps around in speculative ideas, descriptions and theories. Using titles or rank as a means of factual integrity is thin. It's still hearsay.
People want to believe, but the fact remains there is zero undisputed evidence for off-world UFOs.
ipunchghosts|2 years ago
ecshafer|2 years ago
shadowgovt|2 years ago
The first thing we teach pilots is that they have to get comfortable with the fact that their eyes play tricks on them in flight. Our visual perception wasn't tuned for high speeds, high altitudes, and truly three-dimensional relationship assessment, and they're as prone to misinterpretation of things they didn't train on as everyone else is. If they say "That blob is a fighter-jet near the horizon's edge," I believe them; but if they say "I think that blob is a space alien," I don't because nobody knows what a space alien looks like (and "That doesn't look like anything I know" still doesn't imply "space alien").
memetomancer|2 years ago
I don't think this is accurate - "navy pilots" are domain experts in operation of navy aircraft.
What you are maybe getting confused here is that the three examples in the article are actually part of several domains, each of which is very different from aviation expertise.
The domains we're talking about include topics such as optical physics, radar physics (transmitters & receivers), optical sensor technology (and attendant physics), and digital processing including chipset hardware and software stack (and implementation of specific physics). Each of these are their own 'domain', which is important here because faulty implementation in any one of them can lead to such anomalies.
In general, navy pilots do not have that expertise, though I would very much like to hear the opinions of a navy pilot that is indeed 'expert' with all of these 'domains'.
ChainOfFools|2 years ago
getting a degree in aeronautics is not like passing a driving exam or heavy machinery license.
though I reject analyses that lean towards LGM, i recognise that people flying these aircraft have necessarily demonstrated enough advanced math and physics competency to understand well the boundary between known vs inexplicable physical phenomena. they are either deliberately ignoring their own training or else have some undiagnosed amnesia, instigated by sudden exposure to celebrity status.
hersko|2 years ago
They are domain experts in what they saw with their own eyes in their domain (the sky). The videos are just corroborating evidence.
marcusverus|2 years ago
I'm not a true believer by any means, but the claims are much more compelling than this post gives them credit for.
MarkMarine|2 years ago
I've seen pilots with their head down in the targeting system saying some really really silly things that were obviously wrong when they got their eyes up and got some SA.
carabiner|2 years ago
micromacrofoot|2 years ago
People tend to fall back on these videos as "expert proof" as if military witnesses are more reliable in some way... but they're not at all experts on atmospheric phenomenon, optics, UFOs, or a multitude of other things that could potentially explain these. When it comes to what they're seeing here the expertise ends at "not a plane"
tedunangst|2 years ago
bell-cot|2 years ago
Spooky23|2 years ago
By definition there’s low information. Where I grew up there was a ton of 1980s UFO sightings, generating lots of speculation. Later, we learned they were test Tomahawk cruise missiles that used to develop their terrain navigation system.
gabereiser|2 years ago
They are indeed real, UFOs, but that’s where it ends. We know of several different kinds, but we know not of their origin or how they work. Or at least that information is still sealed. The pentagon knows. Maybe not their communications department but the top brass knows, or at least has access to, the blue book files.
adamredwoods|2 years ago
The Joe Rogan Experience video is such speculation that I cannot take any of it as fact. He jumps around in speculative ideas, descriptions and theories. Using titles or rank as a means of factual integrity is thin. It's still hearsay.
People want to believe, but the fact remains there is zero undisputed evidence for off-world UFOs.
poulpy123|2 years ago