Ah, sorry about that. It's a well done website though and I think they do a really good job of breaking down that Puerto Rico video. It's strange to me that that video doesn't get more attention.

No, don't apologize. I'm glad someone else posted it as well. I was just saying not to expect much discussion.

And yeah, that video is pretty wild/utterly convincing.

I feel like I have to post a disclaimer as to not be ridiculed here when it comes to these more outlandish claims, so I'm NOT endorsing this guy's story as the absolute real deal - I have no idea - but I stumbled on this interview via Twitter the other night and this has to be one of the most convincing accounts I've seen when it comes to stuff like this (in this case, a crashed UFO retrieval in Peru). If not seeking money or attention, who knows why people choose to lie about things like this, and this guy no doubt very well could be. That said, he truly does seem like he's at least recounting a real memory/event, and provides a ton of believable details in the process...



The main reason I'm posting this, though, is because it gave me an idea for a TV series. The relevant part having to do with what he believes is going on behind the scenes, has heard from other officers he was stationed with in the area, etc, which has to do with how these black ops groups that *potentially* deal with UFOs are funded. He essentially says it's obviously a challenge to fund these super-high-budget secret agencies without risking some kind of money trail being uncovered. So these agencies basically generate their own funding via running drugs and dealing arms all throughout Mexico and South America, and then into the U.S. as well, all with the backing of our own government.

Again, I'm NOT saying I buy any of that. But strictly from an entertainment perspective, how badass would a series be about a U.S.-sanctioned black ops agency that specializes in some kind of UFO study/tracking/retrieval/research, who ALSO has to go up against the cartels, maybe even manipulates the entire game, has elaborate reach, etc. It'd be like Sicario meets Men in Black, but way more similar in tone to the former. Or maybe the black ops agency is some super shadowy, whispered-about entity, and we follow a character who slowly but surely begins to unravel their existence via the drug/arms trade. I just love the idea of, say, an otherwise intimidating cartel boss being scared ****less of these guys. Or the idea that certain cartel members work with them, maybe even know aliens are real, etc.

Just a cool juxtaposition of worlds that could make for an interesting scripted/fictional series.

Suddenly, everyone from senators and scientists to the Pentagon and presidents are starting to talk openly about an issue that would previously be discussed only in whispers, if at all: UFOs. https://t.co/Hu0OjuyVyK

— NBC News (@NBCNews) June 13, 2021

It's great that NBC and more mainstream outlets are covering this, but I cannot understand why "former video game programmer" Mick West gets a voice in the discussion. I guess if they feel the need to balance out the conversation, then it speaks volumes that he is the representative of the skeptical point of view.

Yeah, it's weird. He's become the go-to skeptic as of late in all this coverage, even though his bias is pathological, and his credibility/credentials aren't the best. It goes without saying that skeptics play an essential role in the discussion, but giving so much attention to someone like West, who utterly refuse to believe in even the remote possibility that these things *could* be real, feels a little gross. Not believing in the phenomenon is one thing. I get that. But trying as hard as he does to refute every last instance, while flat-out ignoring so much compelling and credible data, is another thing altogether, and makes for such an obvious bad faith effort on his part.

Jab said:

---

It's great that NBC and more mainstream outlets are covering this, but I cannot understand why "former video game programmer" Mick West gets a voice in the discussion. I guess if they feel the need to balance out the conversation, then it speaks volumes that he is the representative of the skeptical point of view.

---

It's just a little bit disingenuous to say this just shortly after a video of one the most famous living physicists was skeptical of the claims was posted.

Again, skeptical is one thing. But Tyson is at least still open to the possibility. I watched his interview with Bill Maher on Friday and it was great, he expressed his doubt, but his whole point was to underline the fact that he doesn't know. West is a different animal, though. West bends over backwards to explain away every last report and video in some hell-bent crusade to snuff out even the remote possibility that these things could maybe be extra/ultraterrestrial. West is *starting* from such a bias, agenda-driven POV that it makes hard to take anything he says seriously. Tyson, however, takes a far more scientific approach.

My post was in response to this line

Quote:

---

I guess if they feel the need to balance out the conversation, then it speaks volumes that he is the representative of the skeptical point of view.

---

Tyson is still a skeptic.

The media selecting someone like West instead of someone credible says more about how utterly pathetic and void of integrity news media is, not a statement about the quality of skepticism on the subject.

Fenrir said:

---

My post was in response to this line

Quote:

---

I guess if they feel the need to balance out the conversation, then it speaks volumes that he is the representative of the skeptical point of view.

---

Tyson is still a skeptic.

The media selecting someone like West instead of someone credible says more about how utterly pathetic and void of integrity news media is, not a statement about the quality of skepticism on the subject.

---

Obviously. And I literally said as much.

As for the media, sure, but until Tyson very recently spoke on the matter, there really hadn't been any other loud, credible, vocal detractors. There were/are of course plenty reasonable doubts expressed, but no one other than West truly leading the charge against all of this.

Tyson's doctoral thesis was based on data from sensors. If he's skeptical of data confirming fantastical movements of these objects (ie 80000 ft to 50 ft in less than a second) simply because it was measured with a sensor, then should we be equally skeptical of his PhD?

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992PhDT.........1T/abstract

In his abstract he states they had been recently calibrated and I take him at his word. Perhaps the confirming details are listed in the body of the paper.

But to verify his sensors calibration was done correctly he would need to confirm
Was the company that did the calibration qualified to do the work?
Did they calibrate to industry and scientific recognized standards?
Was the technician qualified and properly trained to do the work?
Were the tools and equipment used to do the calibration also calibrated correctly themselves?
Etc.

How far down the rabbit hole does he need to go before he will acknowledge the sensor information.as legit?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Except even Elizondo isn't "all or nothing," and neither are many of his ilk, if people would actually listen to what they're saying. And those of us who simply enjoy discussing the subject matter, and think it *could* be real, based not on the rantings of basement-dwelling conspiracy theorists, but rather credible military pilot testimony, corroborated data and the like... I guess we're all just irresponsible morons as well.

Sorry that I don't find an appeal to authority to be a convincing argument...I guess.

Fogburn95 said:

---

Tyson's doctoral thesis was based on data from sensors. If he's skeptical of data confirming fantastical movements of these objects (ie 80000 ft to 50 ft in less than a second) simply because it was measured with a sensor, then should we be equally skeptical of his PhD?

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992PhDT.........1T/abstract

In his abstract he states they had been recently calibrated and I take him at his word. Perhaps the confirming details are listed in the body of the paper.

But to verify his sensors calibration was done correctly he would need to confirm
Was the company that did the calibration qualified to do the work?
Did they calibrate to industry and scientific recognized standards?
Was the technician qualified and properly trained to do the work?
Were the tools and equipment used to do the calibration also calibrated correctly themselves?
Etc.

How far down the rabbit hole does he need to go before he will acknowledge the sensor information.as legit?

---

All great points. It's so telling that even guys like Tyson have to constantly revert to "malfunctioning equipment" and "pilot error" to explain all of this away. But at what point does the tidal wave of constantly-malfunctioning equipment and decades of pilot error - working hand-in-hand, always happening in conjunction with the other - become just as far-fetched as the idea of aliens themselves?

Fenrir said:

---

Sorry that I don't find an appeal to authority to be a convincing argument...I guess.

---

Appeal to authority? Or... it's simply taking the word of the vast majority of credible military pilots with absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by going pubic with their stories. Never mind the additional personnel and data that corroborates their claims.

SquirrellyDan said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Fogburn95 said:

---

Tyson's doctoral thesis was based on data from sensors. If he's skeptical of data confirming fantastical movements of these objects (ie 80000 ft to 50 ft in less than a second) simply because it was measured with a sensor, then should we be equally skeptical of his PhD?

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992PhDT.........1T/abstract

In his abstract he states they had been recently calibrated and I take him at his word. Perhaps the confirming details are listed in the body of the paper.

But to verify his sensors calibration was done correctly he would need to confirm
Was the company that did the calibration qualified to do the work?
Did they calibrate to industry and scientific recognized standards?
Was the technician qualified and properly trained to do the work?
Were the tools and equipment used to do the calibration also calibrated correctly themselves?
Etc.

How far down the rabbit hole does he need to go before he will acknowledge the sensor information.as legit?

---

All great points. It's so telling that even guys like Tyson have to constantly revert to "malfunctioning equipment" and "pilot error" to explain all of this away. But at what point does the tidal wave of constantly-malfunctioning equipment and decades of pilot error - working hand-in-hand, always happening in conjunction with the other - become just as far-fetched as the idea of aliens themselves?

---

The problem with this argument is that people throughout history that have done exactly that, whether intentionally or not. There is plenty evidence of malfunctioning equipment. There is zero evidence that aliens exist.

---

Right, but at some point you have to admit that in order for this phenomenon *not* to be real, it's pretty crazy that THIS many pilots are all apparently misidentifying the exact same things at literally the exact same time not only their own tracking data is apparently malfunctioning, but multiple, independently corroborating tracking systems are all malfunction as well. The chances of that happening over and over and over again, on a daily basis as some of these pilots claim - for decades - is just as ridiculous as the idea of an alien presence on Earth. As I've said multiple times, your argument works in a vacuum. But you're being just as obtuse as many here claim I'm being by ignoring the sheer number - and similarity - of accounts, all backed by credible tracking data. Further, it's so easy to make these blanket claims of "pilot error" while completely ignoring that many of these pilots are utterly convinced of what they say they witnessed, often at an incredibly close range. They've provided *detailed* accounts of some of these encounters, yet you would choose to believe they're either all continually lying, or are all continually incapable of identifying things like a giant white tic-tac floating right in front of their faces. Not only that, but these pilots are convinced enough of what they saw to risk their careers and credibility to come forward. Yet, because none of it is hard evidence, it's okay to just completely discount what they're all saying?

This thread continues to fascinate me; definitely fit for the entertainment board! Love it!!

One thing to keep in mind is that the sensor is part of a system on a Navy ship designed to detect possible threats as soon as possible. They would want this system to be as reliable as possible. To that end I assume they periodically check and recalibrate as needed to ensure it's working properly. I would also assume that if the system was showing green light but started reporting crazy data they'd do some kind of check on the spot to see if it started glitching.

So this data point has been vetted some, but it is a very important data point so I agree they need to confirm the sensor was functioning properly.

If they had a suspicion that it was due to an error or malfunction why would they release the data as legit?

Unless they're lying, which could very well be the case.

DallasTeleAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

All great points. It's so telling that even guys like Tyson have to constantly revert to "malfunctioning equipment" and "pilot error" to explain all of this away. But at what point does the tidal wave of constantly-malfunctioning equipment and decades of pilot error - working hand-in-hand, always happening in conjunction with the other - become just as far-fetched as the idea of aliens themselves?

---

Really? He's not "reverting to malfunctioning equipment". The burden of proof is not on him or anyone other than those claiming the existence of extraterrestrials. There is a recent obsession over sensor readings of these UFOs. Seeing as this is such a big ordeal, I find it more than reasonable for a true scientist to point to all the potential weak points in the data or how the data was acquired.

There are plenty of documented cases with sensor readings for ghosts/demons, as well. Do you choose to believe these?

---

I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore. Because it's not on me or anyone else to prove that these are extraterrestrial. People like Elizondo are simply presenting testimony and reporting on the data they've seen, but are ultimately saying they don't know what these things are - and making a point to do so - then people like us are discussing on an internet message board the potential implications of what's being presented to us. To which a handful of people in this thread for some reason roll their eyes and seemingly get mad at those of us entertaining the idea that they might actually be extraterrestrials, demanding proof, as if the fate of this site depends on us coming to some sort of conclusion. Which is so weird to me.

As to your latter point, I don't discount the existence of ghosts at all. And I'm even open to demons, though I've explained in detail why I don't believe demons to be the case. But who knows!

It's not disingenuous. Mick West is quoted in the article I'm referencing and he's appeared in several others. He's become the go-to spokesperson for providing the counterpoint to this narrative and he brings nothing to the table. NDT has answered questions on podcasts recently but he's not seeking out this topic (and frankly comes across as pretty ignorant when discussing it). So sure, he's skeptical, but he's not going to carry that spokesperson mantle because he isn't invested in this and hasn't done the research.

Also, that is one thing that I like about Elizondo on Unidentified, was that he is not trying to prove aliens exist; he just tries to gather as much information possible, rule out potential explanations and then leave it at that. So many of these shows just try to grasp at the "it's aliens" straw and then never present any obvious counter postions, so those just come across as really cheesy.

Another thing I liked in that series was the they went into a lot of depth of the "encounters" (multiple witnesses from different locations / radars) instead of just jumping from one encounter to the next like a lot of shows do.

Exactly. And I don't know why that rubs so many people the wrong way.

As for Unidentified, 100%. It's still the best series on the subject I've ever seen, not only for how well it's produced, but for the very reasons you mention.

I agree with the poster who said the Puerto Rico video does not get enough play. For me, that is the most compelling video of this batch of military recordings. This youtuber (top 5s) gave a good run-down of the footage in this 2016 video below.

Top5S Video on USOs

Puerto Rico video is so interesting, seems strange that it's NOT getting more attention

I think part of the problem is there's already so much noise about UFOs over the past 25 years it's hard to keep these couple recent Navy videos and statements from officials on 60 Minutes separate from that. All these documentaries, TV shows, etc have biased people's views.

There are people who put the possibility of alien life at 0%. For them to move off of that a little bit and admit there is even a 1% chance would be a huge step for them to take. It would require so much good evidence that you're basically proving aliens exist 100%.

This group will grab onto one valid explanation for a presented data point and then use that as justification to invalidate everything else. "This came from a sensor and sensors can malfunction. Therefore this evidence is invalid and therefore everything else is invalid as well."

No, this came from a sensor and sensors can malfunction, so let's verify the sensor wasn't malfunctioning so we can then determine what to make of this information.

Very well said.

Fogburn95 said:

---

I think part of the problem is there's already so much noise about UFOs over the past 25 years it's hard to keep these couple recent Navy videos and statements from officials on 60 Minutes separate from that. All these documentaries, TV shows, etc have biased people's views.

There are people who put the possibility of alien life at 0%. For them to move off of that a little bit and admit there is even a 1% chance would be a huge step for them to take. It would require so much good evidence that you're basically proving aliens exist 100%.

This group will grab onto one valid explanation for a presented data point and then use that as justification to invalidate everything else. "This came from a sensor and sensors can malfunction. Therefore this evidence is invalid and therefore everything else is invalid as well."

No, this came from a sensor and sensors can malfunction, so let's verify the sensor wasn't malfunctioning so we can then determine what to make of this information.

---

The problem I have is that these videos aren't any different than any other grainy photographs of UFOs or Bigfoot or whatever we've seen countless times before. I'm not looking for any evidence that proves aliens exist 100%. Just a clear photograph or something that can't be explained by things that we know exist (malfunctions, human error, lighting, inaccurate human memory/interpretations/agendas, etc).

It's certainly interesting, no doubt about it. And it's fun to think about.