wtf_confused

No, they are not reflections in the optical system. In fact, Raytheon is actually using this to advertise the system that was involved. I don't think they would be doing that if it was in fact a flaw in their system that was at fault. Also, they were tracked on radar, infrared, and visually. How does that that square with a flawed infrared system?

We know this because the radar operators are on record in many mainstream media interviews telling us the radar can track these objects performing in these ways. Also, why do you doubt that the radar can tell the difference between an object at 80,000 or one at 20,000? Our entire system of air traffic control would fail if they couldn't do that. But, I will tell you, you are wrong, it could not be a meteor. Meteors don't hover at 20,000 feet for hours, nor do they suddenly decide to shoot back up out of the atmosphere after spending hours hovering at 20,000 feet. Do you have another guess?

I understand your distrust of the military, but what does this skeptical outlook gain us? Do you think we stand to benefit more from dismissing these claims as potentially tainted than seriously investigating them? I do not think humanity has a strong track record of scientific or technological advancement when it talked itself out of gaining new knowledge.

The radar operators report the craft could go from 80,000 feet to 20,000 or down to sea level in under a second. Out of sheer curiosity, what do you think they actually have at NG/LM that could move like that? I find that sort of performance to be beyond us, don't you? I can't see a skunkworks craft doing that, makes no sense to me.

Why? Did we change what we call these things because some people in power are afraid of the taint of woo and made up a new designation? I like UFO:)

I agree that such an effort is needed for serious study, or maybe the weeks of radar tracks the navy may get declassified if enough scientists are interested, but I think there is ample performance data available from the pilots themselves to give us order of magnitude estimates of what they are capable of. From this trained experts can deduce much. I envision clever people having insights like this: http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/codoban/PHY138/...

To start the conversation, I think we should immediately ask ourselves the following:

1) Given the performance observed, what sort of power generation technology could or could not be inside of these craft?

2) Is it even possible to build a 30ft - 40ft physical craft that can endure g-forces in the 10,000's? If not, does this force us to conclude it is some sort of warp drive and the craft isn't actually experiencing the forces the performance data would indicate?

I think that logical reasoning along these lines by experts might yield un-escapable conclusions that could inform us how they might work and how they can't possibly work, a start towards what we need to learn and might ignore along the way.