Meet the Guerrilla Skeptics, the "fact checkers" rewriting thousands of UFO wikipedia articles

a reply to: quintessentone

As matters are being publicly disputed, reporting both sides of the debate is fair. Let the reader decide for themselves. To resort to personal and character attacks while ignoring importance evidence drops the ball on scientific integrity.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: quintessentone

As matters are being publicly disputed, reporting both sides of the debate is fair. Let the reader decide for themselves. To resort to personal and character attacks while ignoring importance evidence drops the ball on scientific integrity.

The personal and character attacks are never initiated by me, asking someone to read evidence and to deny ignorance is doing them a favor. If they want to remain or be cemented in their beliefs, fine, just don't start coming after me with insults and no sources to back up any claims. Opinions are only that - not truths or not empirical evidence.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: arcticshuffle

That data collected is from inexperienced people guessing at speed, altitude etc. during encounters. Radar in aircraft is flawed and is not set up for UAP data collection.

The only data that will be reliable will be from the new high tech. scientific instrumentation recently set up to monitor incoming UAPs from high altitudes right to the ground. In other words, specialized equipment specifically for collecting data on UAPs and other phenomenon coming from space into our skies and landing on the ground.

Ridiculousness is subjective when you don't see the whole picture, as is the case with you. Researching a topic just a little bit helps one to deny ignorance, try it some time.

The need for factcheckers within this and other types of phenomenon is evident from some of the replies on this thread.

www.nytimes.com...

The military and airline pilots, and a few astronauts involved, are literally the most experienced and expert people on the planet, with the best tech in the world.

Goodness gracious. Will you please stop saying absurd and ridiculous things ?

A few sayings come to mind -

Take the L

Stop digging that hole

Wake up

Do better

I’m guessing that you can do none of these, and will be back ASAP with another heaping helping of nonsense. But at least I tried to help you out.

Again, read what NASA has to say at the link I provided and wake up and deny ignorance.

Maybe I will, maybe I won’t.

Nothing NASA can say on the subject would cure your ludicrous statements throughout the thread.

The recent aviators’ sightings, observations, knowledge, and tech are the best available. Your dismissal of them can’t be explained except for maybe a flimsy “I shouldn’t have said that”.

But it’s all good, we all know the score.

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: arcticshuffle

That data collected is from inexperienced people guessing at speed, altitude etc. during encounters. Radar in aircraft is flawed and is not set up for UAP data collection.

The only data that will be reliable will be from the new high tech. scientific instrumentation recently set up to monitor incoming UAPs from high altitudes right to the ground. In other words, specialized equipment specifically for collecting data on UAPs and other phenomenon coming from space into our skies and landing on the ground.

Ridiculousness is subjective when you don't see the whole picture, as is the case with you. Researching a topic just a little bit helps one to deny ignorance, try it some time.

The need for factcheckers within this and other types of phenomenon is evident from some of the replies on this thread.

www.nytimes.com...

The military and airline pilots, and a few astronauts involved, are literally the most experienced and expert people on the planet, with the best tech in the world.

Goodness gracious. Will you please stop saying absurd and ridiculous things ?

A few sayings come to mind -

Take the L

Stop digging that hole

Wake up

Do better

I’m guessing that you can do none of these, and will be back ASAP with another heaping helping of nonsense. But at least I tried to help you out.

Again, read what NASA has to say at the link I provided and wake up and deny ignorance.

Maybe I will, maybe I won’t.

Nothing NASA can say on the subject would cure your ludicrous statements throughout the thread.

The recent aviators’ sightings, observations, knowledge, and tech are the best available. Your dismissal of them can’t be explained except for maybe a flimsy “I shouldn’t have said that”.

But it’s all good, we all know the score.

As I stated above opinions are not facts and if you disagree fine, keep your head buried and have a nice day. If NASA's finest dismisses it for very good reason, then that's good enough for me.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: quintessentone

As matters are being publicly disputed, reporting both sides of the debate is fair. Let the reader decide for themselves. To resort to personal and character attacks while ignoring importance evidence drops the ball on scientific integrity.

The personal and character attacks are never initiated by me, asking someone to read evidence and to deny ignorance is doing them a favor. If they want to remain or be cemented in their beliefs, fine, just don't start coming after me with insults and no sources to back up any claims. Opinions are only that - not truths or not empirical evidence.

Some opinions are gold, some are tin or pot metal.

Especially when some are backed up by a lifetime and career of the top 1 % of the top 1 %. Who have the world’s best tech in their hands.

The fact that you will never admit to this, is why there can’t be a rational discussion.

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: quintessentone

As matters are being publicly disputed, reporting both sides of the debate is fair. Let the reader decide for themselves. To resort to personal and character attacks while ignoring importance evidence drops the ball on scientific integrity.

The personal and character attacks are never initiated by me, asking someone to read evidence and to deny ignorance is doing them a favor. If they want to remain or be cemented in their beliefs, fine, just don't start coming after me with insults and no sources to back up any claims. Opinions are only that - not truths or not empirical evidence.

Some opinions are gold, some are tin or pot metal.

Especially when some are backed up by a lifetime and career of the top 1 % of the top 1 %. Who have the world’s best tech in their hands.

The fact that you will never admit to this, is why there can’t be a rational discussion.

NASA admits their top tech. is not suitable or set up to monitor UAPs - nor repeatable - plain and simple - I'm not sure how more simple I can put it for you to get it.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: arcticshuffle

That data collected is from inexperienced people guessing at speed, altitude etc. during encounters. Radar in aircraft is flawed and is not set up for UAP data collection.

The only data that will be reliable will be from the new high tech. scientific instrumentation recently set up to monitor incoming UAPs from high altitudes right to the ground. In other words, specialized equipment specifically for collecting data on UAPs and other phenomenon coming from space into our skies and landing on the ground.

Ridiculousness is subjective when you don't see the whole picture, as is the case with you. Researching a topic just a little bit helps one to deny ignorance, try it some time.

The need for factcheckers within this and other types of phenomenon is evident from some of the replies on this thread.

www.nytimes.com...

The military and airline pilots, and a few astronauts involved, are literally the most experienced and expert people on the planet, with the best tech in the world.

Goodness gracious. Will you please stop saying absurd and ridiculous things ?

A few sayings come to mind -

Take the L

Stop digging that hole

Wake up

Do better

I’m guessing that you can do none of these, and will be back ASAP with another heaping helping of nonsense. But at least I tried to help you out.

Again, read what NASA has to say at the link I provided and wake up and deny ignorance.

Maybe I will, maybe I won’t.

Nothing NASA can say on the subject would cure your ludicrous statements throughout the thread.

The recent aviators’ sightings, observations, knowledge, and tech are the best available. Your dismissal of them can’t be explained except for maybe a flimsy “I shouldn’t have said that”.

But it’s all good, we all know the score.

As I stated above opinions are not facts and if you disagree fine, keep your head buried and have a nice day. If NASA's finest dismisses it for very good reason, then that's good enough for me.

We know that these military fliers are among the best. How did we define somebody as “NASA’s finest” ?

Now here is where we could really delve into reason vs opinion. Not holding my breath ….

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: arcticshuffle

That data collected is from inexperienced people guessing at speed, altitude etc. during encounters. Radar in aircraft is flawed and is not set up for UAP data collection.

The only data that will be reliable will be from the new high tech. scientific instrumentation recently set up to monitor incoming UAPs from high altitudes right to the ground. In other words, specialized equipment specifically for collecting data on UAPs and other phenomenon coming from space into our skies and landing on the ground.

Ridiculousness is subjective when you don't see the whole picture, as is the case with you. Researching a topic just a little bit helps one to deny ignorance, try it some time.

The need for factcheckers within this and other types of phenomenon is evident from some of the replies on this thread.

www.nytimes.com...

The military and airline pilots, and a few astronauts involved, are literally the most experienced and expert people on the planet, with the best tech in the world.

Goodness gracious. Will you please stop saying absurd and ridiculous things ?

A few sayings come to mind -

Take the L

Stop digging that hole

Wake up

Do better

I’m guessing that you can do none of these, and will be back ASAP with another heaping helping of nonsense. But at least I tried to help you out.

Again, read what NASA has to say at the link I provided and wake up and deny ignorance.

Maybe I will, maybe I won’t.

Nothing NASA can say on the subject would cure your ludicrous statements throughout the thread.

The recent aviators’ sightings, observations, knowledge, and tech are the best available. Your dismissal of them can’t be explained except for maybe a flimsy “I shouldn’t have said that”.

But it’s all good, we all know the score.

As I stated above opinions are not facts and if you disagree fine, keep your head buried and have a nice day. If NASA's finest dismisses it for very good reason, then that's good enough for me.

We know that these military fliers are among the best. How did we define somebody as “NASA’s finest” ?

Now here is where we could really delve into reason vs opinion. Not holding my breath ….

We are talking military tech. a military flier is only as good as their tech. and as NASA states, if you'd bother to read my links I gave you, their tech. stinks for UAP tracking and data analysis and they have to begin again.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: quintessentone

As matters are being publicly disputed, reporting both sides of the debate is fair. Let the reader decide for themselves. To resort to personal and character attacks while ignoring importance evidence drops the ball on scientific integrity.

The personal and character attacks are never initiated by me, asking someone to read evidence and to deny ignorance is doing them a favor. If they want to remain or be cemented in their beliefs, fine, just don't start coming after me with insults and no sources to back up any claims. Opinions are only that - not truths or not empirical evidence.

Some opinions are gold, some are tin or pot metal.

Especially when some are backed up by a lifetime and career of the top 1 % of the top 1 %. Who have the world’s best tech in their hands.

The fact that you will never admit to this, is why there can’t be a rational discussion.

NASA admits their top tech. is not suitable or set up to monitor UAPs - nor repeatable - plain and simple - I'm not sure how more simple I can put it for you to get it.

Finally, something free of silly fluff.

Maybe NASA does have limited terrestrial coverage. Maybe that’s why they’re named NASA ?

People who fly planes nearer the earth, and people who are standing on the earth, are just about the whole UFO-UAP evidence base. We have about 75 years of data from these folks that’s important to look at as a whole, and linearly.

All the sightings/ data isn’t good. Some of it’s outstanding. That’s science. Identifying which is which and building some well reasoned hypotheses. Which, strangely enough, could include

“UFO’s are something amazing !”

Or …… “nothing happening here”

That’s science.

Saying “whatever those guys say doesn’t matter” is just an embarrassment. Not science.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: arcticshuffle

That data collected is from inexperienced people guessing at speed, altitude etc. during encounters. Radar in aircraft is flawed and is not set up for UAP data collection.

The only data that will be reliable will be from the new high tech. scientific instrumentation recently set up to monitor incoming UAPs from high altitudes right to the ground. In other words, specialized equipment specifically for collecting data on UAPs and other phenomenon coming from space into our skies and landing on the ground.

Ridiculousness is subjective when you don't see the whole picture, as is the case with you. Researching a topic just a little bit helps one to deny ignorance, try it some time.

The need for factcheckers within this and other types of phenomenon is evident from some of the replies on this thread.

www.nytimes.com...

The military and airline pilots, and a few astronauts involved, are literally the most experienced and expert people on the planet, with the best tech in the world.

Goodness gracious. Will you please stop saying absurd and ridiculous things ?

A few sayings come to mind -

Take the L

Stop digging that hole

Wake up

Do better

I’m guessing that you can do none of these, and will be back ASAP with another heaping helping of nonsense. But at least I tried to help you out.

Again, read what NASA has to say at the link I provided and wake up and deny ignorance.

Maybe I will, maybe I won’t.

Nothing NASA can say on the subject would cure your ludicrous statements throughout the thread.

The recent aviators’ sightings, observations, knowledge, and tech are the best available. Your dismissal of them can’t be explained except for maybe a flimsy “I shouldn’t have said that”.

But it’s all good, we all know the score.

As I stated above opinions are not facts and if you disagree fine, keep your head buried and have a nice day. If NASA's finest dismisses it for very good reason, then that's good enough for me.

We know that these military fliers are among the best. How did we define somebody as “NASA’s finest” ?

Now here is where we could really delve into reason vs opinion. Not holding my breath ….

We are talking military tech. a military flier is only as good as their tech. and as NASA states, if you'd bother to read my links I gave you, their tech. stinks for UAP tracking and data analysis and they have to begin again.

NASA said “military tech stinks” ? Really ?

Now we’re getting somewhere. Nowhere good, I’m afraid.

If NASA isn’t equipped to do UFO-UAP work, why would they be insulting those who have at least some capability ?

And I promise you, the US military’s top line aircraft have the best tech on earth for tracking other crafts’ performance, capabilities, and so on.

Go ahead and say “nuh-uh” yet again. We’ll just throw that on the ever growing pile.

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: arcticshuffle

That data collected is from inexperienced people guessing at speed, altitude etc. during encounters. Radar in aircraft is flawed and is not set up for UAP data collection.

The only data that will be reliable will be from the new high tech. scientific instrumentation recently set up to monitor incoming UAPs from high altitudes right to the ground. In other words, specialized equipment specifically for collecting data on UAPs and other phenomenon coming from space into our skies and landing on the ground.

Ridiculousness is subjective when you don't see the whole picture, as is the case with you. Researching a topic just a little bit helps one to deny ignorance, try it some time.

The need for factcheckers within this and other types of phenomenon is evident from some of the replies on this thread.

www.nytimes.com...

The military and airline pilots, and a few astronauts involved, are literally the most experienced and expert people on the planet, with the best tech in the world.

Goodness gracious. Will you please stop saying absurd and ridiculous things ?

A few sayings come to mind -

Take the L

Stop digging that hole

Wake up

Do better

I’m guessing that you can do none of these, and will be back ASAP with another heaping helping of nonsense. But at least I tried to help you out.

Again, read what NASA has to say at the link I provided and wake up and deny ignorance.

Maybe I will, maybe I won’t.

Nothing NASA can say on the subject would cure your ludicrous statements throughout the thread.

The recent aviators’ sightings, observations, knowledge, and tech are the best available. Your dismissal of them can’t be explained except for maybe a flimsy “I shouldn’t have said that”.

But it’s all good, we all know the score.

As I stated above opinions are not facts and if you disagree fine, keep your head buried and have a nice day. If NASA's finest dismisses it for very good reason, then that's good enough for me.

We know that these military fliers are among the best. How did we define somebody as “NASA’s finest” ?

Now here is where we could really delve into reason vs opinion. Not holding my breath ….

We are talking military tech. a military flier is only as good as their tech. and as NASA states, if you'd bother to read my links I gave you, their tech. stinks for UAP tracking and data analysis and they have to begin again.

NASA said “military tech stinks” ? Really ?

Now we’re getting somewhere. Nowhere good, I’m afraid.

If NASA isn’t equipped to do UFO-UAP work, why would they be insulting those who have at least some capability ?

And I promise you, the US military’s top line aircraft have the best tech on earth for tracking other crafts’ performance, capabilities, and so on.

Go ahead and say “nuh-uh” yet again. We’ll just throw that on the ever growing pile.

The U.S. and Canada (NORAD) had to alter their radar detection parameters to NOW be able to track balloons, whereas previously they were not able.

Optical Illusions and Spatial D with aviators:

Mainly, contextual factors: width of landing track lights, nocturnal operations or low visibility, inclination of the landing track, decline of the ground, size of habitual references, low level approach on the water, black hole, sky/terrain confusion, distortion by climatic factors, autokinesis or autocinetics, optional investment illusion, illusions by vection, false horizon, rain on the windshield, misalignment in the approach, vibrations, somatogravic illusion, coriolis illusion and "G" forces. In a lesser extent, human factors and pathologies of the visual systems involved in spatial disorientation and associated optical illusions affecting aviation pilots are also described.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Long list, huh?

originally posted by: quintessentone
To bring everyone up to speed:

The independent study team's final report was published on September 14, 2023, with NASA also announcing the appointment of a director of UAP research. The study team reported that no evidence of extra-terrestrial life was found. The report also stated that the absence of reproducible data makes it challenging to draw conclusions about some UAP origins. It was recommended that a "rigorous, evidence-based approach" be used to study UAP and that data collection methods include artificial intelligence and citizen observers, and stated that NASA is "well-positioned" to lead this study of UAP.[17][18] According to its 2023 terms of reference, the team was dissolved upon the completion and submission of its final report.

en.wikipedia.org...

Let's begin again only this time let's try to get it right, or at least find repeatable data and you wonder why Wikipedia is more evidence-based science-leaning.

Nooo, you really didn’t say this.

No, wait, you did.

Just wow.

Wiki is actually fun and does contain some factual info. But its basic purpose is as a chaotic crowd source where certain things get rewritten every day…..sometimes real corrections, oftentimes agenda driven battles to silence competing beliefs.

Not scientific by any permanent measure or purpose. Keep on keepin’ on ……

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: arcticshuffle

That data collected is from inexperienced people guessing at speed, altitude etc. during encounters. Radar in aircraft is flawed and is not set up for UAP data collection.

The only data that will be reliable will be from the new high tech. scientific instrumentation recently set up to monitor incoming UAPs from high altitudes right to the ground. In other words, specialized equipment specifically for collecting data on UAPs and other phenomenon coming from space into our skies and landing on the ground.

Ridiculousness is subjective when you don't see the whole picture, as is the case with you. Researching a topic just a little bit helps one to deny ignorance, try it some time.

The need for factcheckers within this and other types of phenomenon is evident from some of the replies on this thread.

www.nytimes.com...

The military and airline pilots, and a few astronauts involved, are literally the most experienced and expert people on the planet, with the best tech in the world.

Goodness gracious. Will you please stop saying absurd and ridiculous things ?

A few sayings come to mind -

Take the L

Stop digging that hole

Wake up

Do better

I’m guessing that you can do none of these, and will be back ASAP with another heaping helping of nonsense. But at least I tried to help you out.

Again, read what NASA has to say at the link I provided and wake up and deny ignorance.

Maybe I will, maybe I won’t.

Nothing NASA can say on the subject would cure your ludicrous statements throughout the thread.

The recent aviators’ sightings, observations, knowledge, and tech are the best available. Your dismissal of them can’t be explained except for maybe a flimsy “I shouldn’t have said that”.

But it’s all good, we all know the score.

As I stated above opinions are not facts and if you disagree fine, keep your head buried and have a nice day. If NASA's finest dismisses it for very good reason, then that's good enough for me.

We know that these military fliers are among the best. How did we define somebody as “NASA’s finest” ?

Now here is where we could really delve into reason vs opinion. Not holding my breath ….

We are talking military tech. a military flier is only as good as their tech. and as NASA states, if you'd bother to read my links I gave you, their tech. stinks for UAP tracking and data analysis and they have to begin again.

NASA said “military tech stinks” ? Really ?

Now we’re getting somewhere. Nowhere good, I’m afraid.

If NASA isn’t equipped to do UFO-UAP work, why would they be insulting those who have at least some capability ?

And I promise you, the US military’s top line aircraft have the best tech on earth for tracking other crafts’ performance, capabilities, and so on.

Go ahead and say “nuh-uh” yet again. We’ll just throw that on the ever growing pile.

The U.S. and Canada (NORAD) had to alter their radar detection parameters to NOW be able to track balloons, whereas previously they were not able.

Optical Illusions and Spatial D with aviators:

Mainly, contextual factors: width of landing track lights, nocturnal operations or low visibility, inclination of the landing track, decline of the ground, size of habitual references, low level approach on the water, black hole, sky/terrain confusion, distortion by climatic factors, autokinesis or autocinetics, optional investment illusion, illusions by vection, false horizon, rain on the windshield, misalignment in the approach, vibrations, somatogravic illusion, coriolis illusion and "G" forces. In a lesser extent, human factors and pathologies of the visual systems involved in spatial disorientation and associated optical illusions affecting aviation pilots are also described.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Long list, huh?

Um, OK ?

I just got done agreeing with you that the SPACE agency may very well have limited terrestrial/ atmosphere capabilities.

Leaving earth bound aircraft and people on the ground as our best sources. Especially the best tech snd professionals on earth, in our front line jets.

Can I help in any other way ?

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: arcticshuffle

That data collected is from inexperienced people guessing at speed, altitude etc. during encounters. Radar in aircraft is flawed and is not set up for UAP data collection.

The only data that will be reliable will be from the new high tech. scientific instrumentation recently set up to monitor incoming UAPs from high altitudes right to the ground. In other words, specialized equipment specifically for collecting data on UAPs and other phenomenon coming from space into our skies and landing on the ground.

Ridiculousness is subjective when you don't see the whole picture, as is the case with you. Researching a topic just a little bit helps one to deny ignorance, try it some time.

The need for factcheckers within this and other types of phenomenon is evident from some of the replies on this thread.

www.nytimes.com...

The military and airline pilots, and a few astronauts involved, are literally the most experienced and expert people on the planet, with the best tech in the world.

Goodness gracious. Will you please stop saying absurd and ridiculous things ?

A few sayings come to mind -

Take the L

Stop digging that hole

Wake up

Do better

I’m guessing that you can do none of these, and will be back ASAP with another heaping helping of nonsense. But at least I tried to help you out.

Again, read what NASA has to say at the link I provided and wake up and deny ignorance.

Maybe I will, maybe I won’t.

Nothing NASA can say on the subject would cure your ludicrous statements throughout the thread.

The recent aviators’ sightings, observations, knowledge, and tech are the best available. Your dismissal of them can’t be explained except for maybe a flimsy “I shouldn’t have said that”.

But it’s all good, we all know the score.

As I stated above opinions are not facts and if you disagree fine, keep your head buried and have a nice day. If NASA's finest dismisses it for very good reason, then that's good enough for me.

We know that these military fliers are among the best. How did we define somebody as “NASA’s finest” ?

Now here is where we could really delve into reason vs opinion. Not holding my breath ….

We are talking military tech. a military flier is only as good as their tech. and as NASA states, if you'd bother to read my links I gave you, their tech. stinks for UAP tracking and data analysis and they have to begin again.

NASA said “military tech stinks” ? Really ?

Now we’re getting somewhere. Nowhere good, I’m afraid.

If NASA isn’t equipped to do UFO-UAP work, why would they be insulting those who have at least some capability ?

And I promise you, the US military’s top line aircraft have the best tech on earth for tracking other crafts’ performance, capabilities, and so on.

Go ahead and say “nuh-uh” yet again. We’ll just throw that on the ever growing pile.

The U.S. and Canada (NORAD) had to alter their radar detection parameters to NOW be able to track balloons, whereas previously they were not able.

Optical Illusions and Spatial D with aviators:

Mainly, contextual factors: width of landing track lights, nocturnal operations or low visibility, inclination of the landing track, decline of the ground, size of habitual references, low level approach on the water, black hole, sky/terrain confusion, distortion by climatic factors, autokinesis or autocinetics, optional investment illusion, illusions by vection, false horizon, rain on the windshield, misalignment in the approach, vibrations, somatogravic illusion, coriolis illusion and "G" forces. In a lesser extent, human factors and pathologies of the visual systems involved in spatial disorientation and associated optical illusions affecting aviation pilots are also described.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Long list, huh?

Um, OK ?

I just got done agreeing with you that the SPACE agency may very well have limited terrestrial/ atmosphere capabilities.

Leaving earth bound aircraft and people on the ground as our best sources. Especially the best tech snd professionals on earth, in our front line jets.

Can I help in any other way ?

I helped you by understanding the human factor has limitations as well. You are welcome.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: arcticshuffle

That data collected is from inexperienced people guessing at speed, altitude etc. during encounters. Radar in aircraft is flawed and is not set up for UAP data collection.

The only data that will be reliable will be from the new high tech. scientific instrumentation recently set up to monitor incoming UAPs from high altitudes right to the ground. In other words, specialized equipment specifically for collecting data on UAPs and other phenomenon coming from space into our skies and landing on the ground.

Ridiculousness is subjective when you don't see the whole picture, as is the case with you. Researching a topic just a little bit helps one to deny ignorance, try it some time.

The need for factcheckers within this and other types of phenomenon is evident from some of the replies on this thread.

www.nytimes.com...

The military and airline pilots, and a few astronauts involved, are literally the most experienced and expert people on the planet, with the best tech in the world.

Goodness gracious. Will you please stop saying absurd and ridiculous things ?

A few sayings come to mind -

Take the L

Stop digging that hole

Wake up

Do better

I’m guessing that you can do none of these, and will be back ASAP with another heaping helping of nonsense. But at least I tried to help you out.

Again, read what NASA has to say at the link I provided and wake up and deny ignorance.

Maybe I will, maybe I won’t.

Nothing NASA can say on the subject would cure your ludicrous statements throughout the thread.

The recent aviators’ sightings, observations, knowledge, and tech are the best available. Your dismissal of them can’t be explained except for maybe a flimsy “I shouldn’t have said that”.

But it’s all good, we all know the score.

As I stated above opinions are not facts and if you disagree fine, keep your head buried and have a nice day. If NASA's finest dismisses it for very good reason, then that's good enough for me.

We know that these military fliers are among the best. How did we define somebody as “NASA’s finest” ?

Now here is where we could really delve into reason vs opinion. Not holding my breath ….

We are talking military tech. a military flier is only as good as their tech. and as NASA states, if you'd bother to read my links I gave you, their tech. stinks for UAP tracking and data analysis and they have to begin again.

NASA said “military tech stinks” ? Really ?

Now we’re getting somewhere. Nowhere good, I’m afraid.

If NASA isn’t equipped to do UFO-UAP work, why would they be insulting those who have at least some capability ?

And I promise you, the US military’s top line aircraft have the best tech on earth for tracking other crafts’ performance, capabilities, and so on.

Go ahead and say “nuh-uh” yet again. We’ll just throw that on the ever growing pile.

The U.S. and Canada (NORAD) had to alter their radar detection parameters to NOW be able to track balloons, whereas previously they were not able.

Optical Illusions and Spatial D with aviators:

Mainly, contextual factors: width of landing track lights, nocturnal operations or low visibility, inclination of the landing track, decline of the ground, size of habitual references, low level approach on the water, black hole, sky/terrain confusion, distortion by climatic factors, autokinesis or autocinetics, optional investment illusion, illusions by vection, false horizon, rain on the windshield, misalignment in the approach, vibrations, somatogravic illusion, coriolis illusion and "G" forces. In a lesser extent, human factors and pathologies of the visual systems involved in spatial disorientation and associated optical illusions affecting aviation pilots are also described.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Long list, huh?

Um, OK ?

I just got done agreeing with you that the SPACE agency may very well have limited terrestrial/ atmosphere capabilities.

Leaving earth bound aircraft and people on the ground as our best sources. Especially the best tech snd professionals on earth, in our front line jets.

Can I help in any other way ?

I helped you by understanding the human factor has limitations as well. You are welcome.

Well yes, it does, for both sides equally.

Which would seem to be a wash for this particular discussion.

But I suspect that you still think whatever you said will be a disqualifier for only one side. And definitely not “your” side.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: arcticshuffle

That data collected is from inexperienced people guessing at speed, altitude etc. during encounters. Radar in aircraft is flawed and is not set up for UAP data collection.

The only data that will be reliable will be from the new high tech. scientific instrumentation recently set up to monitor incoming UAPs from high altitudes right to the ground. In other words, specialized equipment specifically for collecting data on UAPs and other phenomenon coming from space into our skies and landing on the ground.

Ridiculousness is subjective when you don't see the whole picture, as is the case with you. Researching a topic just a little bit helps one to deny ignorance, try it some time.

The need for factcheckers within this and other types of phenomenon is evident from some of the replies on this thread.

www.nytimes.com...

The military and airline pilots, and a few astronauts involved, are literally the most experienced and expert people on the planet, with the best tech in the world.

Goodness gracious. Will you please stop saying absurd and ridiculous things ?

A few sayings come to mind -

Take the L

Stop digging that hole

Wake up

Do better

I’m guessing that you can do none of these, and will be back ASAP with another heaping helping of nonsense. But at least I tried to help you out.

Again, read what NASA has to say at the link I provided and wake up and deny ignorance.

Maybe I will, maybe I won’t.

Nothing NASA can say on the subject would cure your ludicrous statements throughout the thread.

The recent aviators’ sightings, observations, knowledge, and tech are the best available. Your dismissal of them can’t be explained except for maybe a flimsy “I shouldn’t have said that”.

But it’s all good, we all know the score.

As I stated above opinions are not facts and if you disagree fine, keep your head buried and have a nice day. If NASA's finest dismisses it for very good reason, then that's good enough for me.

We know that these military fliers are among the best. How did we define somebody as “NASA’s finest” ?

Now here is where we could really delve into reason vs opinion. Not holding my breath ….

We are talking military tech. a military flier is only as good as their tech. and as NASA states, if you'd bother to read my links I gave you, their tech. stinks for UAP tracking and data analysis and they have to begin again.

NASA said “military tech stinks” ? Really ?

Now we’re getting somewhere. Nowhere good, I’m afraid.

If NASA isn’t equipped to do UFO-UAP work, why would they be insulting those who have at least some capability ?

And I promise you, the US military’s top line aircraft have the best tech on earth for tracking other crafts’ performance, capabilities, and so on.

Go ahead and say “nuh-uh” yet again. We’ll just throw that on the ever growing pile.

The U.S. and Canada (NORAD) had to alter their radar detection parameters to NOW be able to track balloons, whereas previously they were not able.

Optical Illusions and Spatial D with aviators:

Mainly, contextual factors: width of landing track lights, nocturnal operations or low visibility, inclination of the landing track, decline of the ground, size of habitual references, low level approach on the water, black hole, sky/terrain confusion, distortion by climatic factors, autokinesis or autocinetics, optional investment illusion, illusions by vection, false horizon, rain on the windshield, misalignment in the approach, vibrations, somatogravic illusion, coriolis illusion and "G" forces. In a lesser extent, human factors and pathologies of the visual systems involved in spatial disorientation and associated optical illusions affecting aviation pilots are also described.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Long list, huh?

Identifying limitations / limfacs is an every day, all day function of any military unit / program. Then they spin up a new program to fix / improve it.

This couldn’t have any less to do with clowns whitewashing wiki, and replacing their whole area of interest with their agenda.

You seem to be very adept at continually throwing random unrelated ‘derailing’ trash at the wall, one after another. This little tangent has nothing to do with the original OP / thread / discussion.

‘Adept’ is sometimes a compliment, but in this case it’s simply an acknowledgment of a very annoying defense mechanism. “I was wrong ….. say anything do anything loudly and endlessly”.

a reply to: Mulder11
Who's financing them to do this , there must be something to it ?

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: Mulder11
Who's financing them to do this , there must be something to it ?

Long story short: The Vatican. They really dont want the layperson to know what they want to kept secret.

They also fund TERFs oddly enough.

a reply to: quintessentone

If NASA's finest dismisses it for very good reason, then that's good enough for me.

So are you ok with where the national security state is going these days? JFK, 9/11, Covid, ... Or have your already signed the non disclosure stuff and legally bound to some serious repercussions for being honest about some things?

When it was finally accepted the the Earth revolved around the Sun, it was not because of what someone or group said. It was because enough people had telescopes, looked at the stars and studied the planets. They all saw the same rhythms and patterns that prove how things generally move in this solar system. Now we have the internet with many stories and reports going around. Some more than others in different places.

With the rhythm and patterns of where this UFO thing is going, some kind of infiltration pushing transhumanism and depopulation is on the radar. Heads up.

originally posted by: BeTheGoddess2

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: Mulder11
Who's financing them to do this , there must be something to it ?

Long story short: The Vatican. They really dont want the layperson to know what they want to kept secret.

They also fund TERFs oddly enough.

That is interesting from the perspective of comparing the whole biblical story and the concept of angels as extraterrestrials, the big alien guy as God, various miracles as amazing tech, and so on. I wonder why the Vatican would not want this possible explanation to be known. Not enough mysticism that only they control ?