UFO just means "unidentified flying object," which could include things like a balloon, a meteor, another airplane, etc.
Not sure why everyone immediately jumps to "Navy admits there are aliens!"
Not sure why everyone immediately jumps to "Navy admits there are aliens!"
> In some cases, pilots — many of whom are engineers and academy graduates — say they observed small spherical objects flying in formation. Others say they’ve seen white, Tic-Tac-shaped vehicles. Aside from drones, all engines rely on burning fuel to generate power, but these vehicles all had no air intake, no wind, and no exhaust. "It's very mysterious, and they still seem to exceed our aircraft in speed," he said, calling it a "truly radical technology."
> "Imagine you see highly advanced vehicles, they appear on radar systems, they look bizarre, no one knows where they're from. This happens on a recurring basis, and no one does anything,"
> “Pilots are upset, and they’re trying to help wake up a slumbering system,”
> In 2017, the Pentagon first confirmed the existence of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, a government operation launched in 2007 to collect and analyze “anomalous aerospace threats.” As the Post’s Joby Warrick reported, the investigation ranged from “advanced aircraft fielded by traditional U.S. adversaries to commercial drones to possible alien encounters.”
etc, etc.
So no there's little that explicitly states UFO is all about ET, but the inference is very high, considering the credibility of the witnessess and the frequency in which such things occur. That the sightings are typically over restricted airspace (military bases) is also rather indicative that these sightings are not balloons, other (known) aircraft, nor meteors.
These sound like weather balloons to me. I don't think most engineers or academy graduates are trained in meteorology either.
Not that I'm saying this is the definite answer or that I am somehow correctly inferring all of this. I'm just proposing that legitimate explanations exist.
Not sure what balloon exceeds the speed of a jet aircraft in the same body of air.
Just that perhaps there is something there.
There are also reports that come from government-affiliated persons, but where those affiliations are very distant. Unless you believe that the US government somehow manages to get their shit together way better for UFO propaganda than they do for, say, evidence-sharing in criminal investigations, then I personally find it implausible that entities as distant from one-another as the US Navy, the National Weather Service, and NASA, would all be speaking from the same side of their faces.
(And also, re “distraction”—who exactly does a UFO report distract? There’s never been one that’s made front-page news AFAIK. Local news of a UFO sighting [without any local UFO crackpots to get inured to] might work to distract a very small town from a psy-op going on in the area, but even a moderately large city wouldn’t even notice the news. You’d do much better covering up a psy-op with, say, an amber alert. That usually becomes 24-hour local news coverage!)
Why can't they be unicorns?
As long as you're jumping to conclusions they could be flying unicorns as well as aliens. Both are as plausible considering that we have no evidence for either.
There is suspicion that it might be still used today.
None of those are needed for 3D holographic projections.
they appear on radar systems
That one may be a little tougher.
But if they can be detected by a radar (at least some of them), it means their existence is not completely beyond the known realm of current physics. Doesn't it mean we can/should do lots of more objective observations of these phenomenon? For example, what are their infrared radiation patterns? What are their EM wave reflection patterns? What do they look like on the optical spectrum, what happens when you point a laser toward it, etc...
So why don't we see people doing that? Especially the military, because they always have enough funding to carry out a large experiment without immediate purposes, such as the HAARP, without assuming conspiracy theories, it's just an array of large and sophisticated HF transmitters, which just happened to be the subject of conspiracies. I think many military installations can be as suspicious as HAARP in the eyes of conspiracy theories, such as those VLF radio stations for communicating with nuclear submarines (conspiracy theorists can describe as them a mind-control device), or those phased-array for radio astronomy (conspiracy theorists can say, if moon landing is fake, why are they still launching these facilities? To create artificial natural disasters to install the new world order, or something... well, can I make a million dollars by becoming the next Alex Jones now?), but it just happened to be HAARP, rather than something like SuperDARN.
Jokes aside, one possible explanation comes to mind is that all researches are classified, and then it comes with full of conspiracy theories that rarely make sense. However, there are quite a few widely-documented UFO spotted by the public, which would allow the much larger civilian researcher groups to collect data, and these activities are very unlikely to be "silenced" as well, since they are already public. Another answer is that the researchers are biased, it may be true, just like the "classified military" explanation, but I don't think it can explain 100% of it. Military cannot classify everything, and not 100% of the established researchers are so biased that they even refuse to check it with some equipment (which is, as well, essentially for concluding that these phenomena are just illusions, not real).
I think the ultimate answer is their unpredictability. Their occurrence is essentially random. You cannot observe something with sophisticated equipment if you are not prepared to, even if you can, you cannot successfully establish a influential project to do that. An example would be ball lightning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning), most scientists before 1960s don't believe it's a real phenomenon, because no objective observations can be carried out, not even a single instance has been capture by the researchers until recently, in 2014.
I think the same goes for UFOs. And if you do see UFOs occur in a predictable manner, it's very likely that they are secret military aircraft or misidentified natural phenomena than "non-natural, artificial-looking, non-illusion, real flying objects in the lower atmosphere that cannot be built by the current human civilization"-kind of UFOs. On the other hand, imagine if there's a predictable occurrence of this kind of UFOs at specific locations around the world, there may even be recognized academic institutions to research them.
If the incidents are not the result of "alien activity" perhaps the US Military does have supremely advanced technology under wraps and is demonstrating this technology to ambiguously create the idea that it could be "aliens".
Hell, even if someone saw a B-2 today they'd probably think it's alien.
It refers to objects that start and stop moving instantaneously, or make turns at hard right angles, as if they have no inertia.
They'd probably think they're living in the matrix and several pixels of sky are glitching.
There was a great interview last night on Tucker Carlson where the expert said there are basically two possibilities that the military should explore: one of our terrestrial enemies has an aviation capability more advanced than ours, or an extraterrestrial civilization has capabilities more advanced than us. Of course, there could be some sort of natural phenomenon we don't know about. In any event, it is worth investigating in a rational way.
This doesn’t mean it’s aliens but this is pretty fucked up.
The "laws of physics" are pretty wide. There are many kinetic phenomena, entirely consistent with them, whose dynamics can't be filmed even at thousands of frames per second. There are all kinds of potential optical and electromagnetic effects (whether natural or intentional) that could show essentially arbitrary scale and motion.
"Def[ies] the known laws of physics", is a good sign your imagination is too narrow, or your understanding of physics too small.
To the best of my knowledge, the only accepted laws of physics relate to the 3 laws of thermodynamics. Everything else is still considered a theory (to the best of my knowledge), even if the theory works really damn well (for instance relativity is still considered a theory).
I know there are accepted "laws" in other fields related to physics, such as Ohm's or Kerchov's laws in electrical engineering, but I don't think these are generally accepted scientific laws, more generally accepted as engineering laws where for nearly all cases for engineering, they apply to a sufficient accuracy to produce products that are sufficient.
How about conservation of momentum?
Thermodynamics on the other hand relies only on effects of large numbers (of hard balls) with no further assumptions. In so far I can understand the GP assertion although I am reluctant. You put in the hard ball assumption (particles can exchange energy) which may put it in theory territory. As well the laws hold only for equilibrium situations which can be reached in (sufficiently dense) baryonic matter but maybe not for non-baryonic matter.
And, it only takes a single counterpoint to disprove a theory. Hence theories are signifcantly harder to prove than disprove.
What you're referring to as laws are theories that work well enough in some circumstances that needing something better isn't needed. Such as relativity to implement GPS. Newton's theorems in Principia Mathematica are generally good enough for most day to day type stuff. E.g. we dont need to involve Relativity to understand the physics being acted upon a car (thats not a Tesla roadster launched into space).
Science isnt much about coining laws. It's more about obtaining an ever more correct model of reality, and as you say, make (reasonably accurate) predictions.
I don't know but I would assume they are usually referring to conservation of momentum being violated, rather than something like the 2nd law of thermodynamics or the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Which is pretty easy to see unless you have reason to believe there is something rather crazy happening that you cannot see (like I imagine a neutron being emitted at >99% of the speed of light to cancel some change in momentum that you otherwise can't explain).
maybe that object flying mach 3 is an optical illusion caused by some combination of factors. like a mirage. by studying the effects and correlating the factors we'll come to understand them better and may even be able to predict and intentionally create them.
in short, this is by no means a hunt for aliens, but on the contrary, it's a hunt for data to help us understand our world better.