'US Government has 'crystal clear pics of UFOs chased by military' claims former insider
“Yesterday, Express.co.uk revealed that in a radio podcast of the Big Picture Science Skeptic Check, produced at the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute, a panel of experts looked at the shocking radar video footage and
the consensus was the object shown was just infrared heat from plane engines misidentified by US Navy pilots.”
Skeptic Check: New UFO Evidence | Big Picture Science
PENTAGON UFO BOMBSHELL: SETI experts break silence over 'world changing alien evidence'
Heh heh. See, this is exactly what I mean when I say that “disbelievers” are just the flip side of the coin from “believers.”
The FLIR footage we’ve seen proves nothing. Could be out-of-focus jet plumes that only
appear to be a single heat source...or it could be something anomalous. It’s neither “proof” nor “disproof,” and people who claim otherwise (on both sides of the debate) are simply fanatics – it takes more than blurry FLIR footage to make a clear and rational assessment.
And all of the BS in those links is coming from one source: the SETI Institute, where Seth Shostak – one of the most ardent disbelievers in American media today (along with full-time UFO debunker Jim Oberg, and a few others who wouldn’t believe in aliens even if one walked up to them and bit their noses off, like Neil deGrasse “ho-ho I’ll believe in aliens when I can have dinner with one” Tyson).
As we’ve already seen, Seth Shostak couldn’t even get the basic facts straight regarding the footage that he labored to debunk:
Seth Shostak loses it
But is he
really that stupid, or does it simply behoove him to
play this stupid? Hard to say. But what
isn’t hard to say, is that SETI’s funding – nay, its entire existence – depends on people believing that alien civilizations are way out there in deep space, not right here in our skies once in awhile, making our top jet pilots flying state-of-the-art combat interceptors feel like biplane operators.
So SETI obviously can’t be impartial – *all of their horses* are in the “radio signals from outer space” race, and any credible indication that alien devices are already navigating our airspace from time to time represents a clear existential threat to their economic survival. Revelations like the on-going 10+ year AATIP program that has issued three dozen reports that we haven’t yet seen, and scientifically analyzed physical evidence, and investigated a slew of military radar-visual cases and gun camera cases and other compelling cases, are what keep people like Seth Shostak up at night.
I actually like the SETI program – we
should keep our ears out to the cosmos to see what we can pick up from other civilizations, because the ones coming here apparently don’t want to talk to us. But SETI is the
least impartial referee on the subject of anomalous aerial devices, so only a fool would site them as a credible source after their habitual denials about the existence of UFOs/AAVs/whathaveyou.
In fact the only interesting content in
that article was offered by Nick Pope:
"I saw the SETI Institute's sceptical comments about the Pentagon
UFO videos and thought I'd chip in, as I think they've misunderstood or failed to take account of something fairly important about this.
While I agree that the videos themselves don't prove anything, I think the criticism of them is based on a misunderstanding. What many people don't seem to appreciate is that these videos haven't been illegally leaked - they've been declassified and legitimately placed into the public domain.
Self-evidently, therefore, there's nothing in them that the US government, military or intelligence community regards as particularly sensitive.
Yes, it's a big deal that military jets were chasing these objects, but while they weren't able to catch or identify them, the videos in and of themselves don't prove the pilots encountered extraterrestrial spacecraft.
The real issue relates not to the grainy imagery that's been released to the world, but to the classified analyses that will have been undertaken by intelligence staff.
When I worked on the MoD's UFO project we received a steady stream of photographs and films from the public, and from time to time, over the years, RAF pilots encountered UFOs and sometimes managed to get some gun camera footage.
We'd send this material to the Defence Intelligence Staff and to a unit called the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre (now subsumed within the Defence Geospatial Intelligence Fusion Centre at RAF Wyton).
These imagery analysts are very bright people and have tremendously sophisticated tools at their disposal to enhance and analyse photos and videos.
This is exactly what AATIP and other US intelligence community personnel will have done with these UFO videos, using their own IMINT (imagery intelligence) specialists.
The detailed results of these analyses, perhaps including enhanced, crystal clear images of what the pilots encountered, haven't yet been made public, and may never see the light of day.
In summary, sceptics may not be impressed by the blurry videos that have been made public - and I take their point - but somewhere in the US intelligence community there will be considerably more impressive material.
However, whether any of this can be declassified and made public remains to be seen."
Indeed it does, Nick.
S.R.I. - serious question: if you're so deeply psychologically invested in debunking ufos, then why are you here? I mean, it's one thing to be unsure - in fact that's a perfectly reasonable position. But apparently you're completely convinced that ufos don't exist, and you'll latch on to whatever shaky/worthless sources that you can dig up to support your foregone conclusion. So what could possibly compel you to come here, of all places? I just can't figure it out. Are you just waiting for the next hoax to be exposed so you can laugh at the rest of us, or what? I honestly don't get it. But you put
a lot of time and effort into posting your cynical and derisive viewpoints all over this forum. I just don't see what you get out out of it. Seriously - tell us; it's totally baffling to me.
