What does Veeky Forums think of this UFO footage?

Textbook argument from ignorance. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Lack of evidence is not extraordinary evidence.

>there's no explanation, let's forget about it
that's not what he's saying. he's saying there's not enough evidence to confirm any of the possible explanations. You can't always get an answer no matter how much arguing and examination you do so after a while it becomes pointless. Pick any unsolved case and say it could be our spacecraft, it could be another country's, it could be some fudging with the video, actual aliens, or something we didn't even consider. If there's not enough evidence to heavily imply one and rule out the others then there's nothing to do. It's not giving up, it's accepting your limits.
>If there's no explanation then it's a genuine UFO
>UFOs are a problem
you're being sneaky here. in the first sentence you're using UFO as just any unidentified flying object, which could be any number of things. in the second you're treating it as a single entity.

What extraordinary claim are you talking about?

All I am saying is there are genuinely unexplainable UFOs out there. Veeky Forums said no because there is never any good film to do a proper debunk well here it is now.

...

Any extraordinary claim, you idiot. "Hurr durr lets solve the mystery. Let's investigate." You just want an answer. You probably believe in some retarded x-tier answer. But there is no answer because there is no evidence.

Some UFOs do strange things, they are UFO as much as the light that does nothing.

I never said it was aliens, putting words into my mouth. I am simply highlighting that Veeky Forums was quick to dismiss UFOs as poor observation but when faced with one you're puzzled yourself.

There is enough evidence in that film to rule out known aircraft or known natural phenomenon so that does imply the existence of an unknown phenomenon. Doesn't mean it's aliens just means there's something going on up there that we don't know about. I don't know how you can call yourself a scientist yet not be excited by this.

>Detect an unexplainable perturbation of a planetary orbit
>Perfectly rational to want to investigate this
>Detect an unexplainable object moving through the atmosphere
>Completely irrational to want to investigate this

Ruling out ANYTHING does not prove a single answer. There is an endless list of possible answers, some which would require little evidence as they are not extraordinary claims, and some which require extraordinary evidence as they are extraordinary claims.

>I don't know how you can call yourself a scientist yet not be excited by this.
I don't know how you can call yourself a scientist when you focus on 70-year old footage with no data hoping to find "THE TRUTH".

Retarded analogy. A perturbation in a planetary orbit can be studied, plenty of data can be gained, and the cause must be a gravitational phenomenon, a mass or distribution of masses of a certain size and in a certain location. A shaky video of blurry white dots is NOTHING. Fuck off retard.

>Ruling out ANYTHING does not prove a single answer.

Quote where I said that the footage proved aliens exist? You have lost the argument that all UFOs are explainable so are now using aliens as a strawman. I never said it was aliens.
>There is an endless list of possible answers
Give them. That's why I made this thread, for the geniuses of Veeky Forums to explain how it's just a meteor. If you can't then I am right, it's a UFO.
>70-year old footage with no data

Footage and the story behind it clearly shows that UFOs are real. I don't know if Veeky Forums has genuinely forgotten or just strawmanning but I originally started these threads to highlight the fact that UFOs should be taken more seriously It was never about proving it's aliens. The fact that I voiced my personal views that I think aliens are a POSSIBILITY is constantly used as a sort of ad hominem attack to discredit my core message about UFOs. UFOs are definitely real, aliens are just a shaky hypothesis that everyone spergs out over as if it's the be all end all of UFO study.

>UFOs can't be studies
So why did governments around the world set up committees to...er... study UFOs?

Troll or illiterate? I didn't say it can't be studied, I said there is no evidence that would lead to a conclusion. Anyone is perfectly capable of wasting their time.

Let's turn this around and now ask, if Ufology was truly worth our time, where are the results of all that time? What has Ufology produced? Surely decades of observations is enough time to produce at least one piece of novel information? You compared astronomy to Ufology in your previous post. If you don't see the irony in this, then you are truly delusional.

>putting words into my mouth
i never said you said it was aliens, putting words in my mouth. i just pointed out the first sentence you use UFO as any number of possible things which could be completely unrelated, but in the the second you speak about it as if it's something to study.
>There is enough evidence in that film to rule out known aircraft or known natural phenomenon so that does imply the existence of an unknown phenomenon
no it doesn't. that's an incredibly arrogant statement.
>I don't know how you can call yourself a scientist yet not be excited by this.
I don't know how this is anything more than an argument from ignorance.

>Decades of observations
Government funded it for a few years then shut it down because of Cold War panic. The last time any real scientists were involved was in the 1960s. Of course if a field is now full of amateurs and tinfoils it is not going to get anywhere. Interestingly though Europe has studied it for longer and the British Ministry of Defence managed to put out a novel plasma ball lightning explanation. And the US and Russian investigation did realize a correlation to nuclear bases, don't quote me on this but I read somewhere that the KGB managed to sort of vary the amount of UFO sightings in an area simply by moving nuclear weapons to the desired locations. So progress can be made when the right people are involved.

You can't say something can't throw up any useful results if it has never been properly studied. Expert analysis of more footage may throw up patterns in shape and movement that can be matched to existing theory. As I said the UK must have done this to come up with their plasma explanation.

I'm going to bed, Veeky Forums is either too lazy or too retarded to analyze evidence complaining its "not enough" so I'll tell you what Douglas Aircraft Corporation did
> In 1955, Dr. Robert M. L. Baker of the Douglas Aircraft Corporation, conducted detailed analysis of the film.
>. He ran a series of tests, including his own films of aircraft at varying distances.
>At twelve miles, using a camera similar to the one Mariana had, Baker filmed a DC-3 so that it duplicated the Montana film
>Studying the Mariana film, Baker had determined the objects were two miles from the camera. At that range, the jet interceptors should have been clearly identifiable as aircraft.
>As the range increased, so did the rate of speed, until at ten miles, the objects had to be moving at 600 miles per hour, and at twelve miles, they were going faster than jets could fly in 1950
>Baker's duplicate needed a DC-3 at twelve miles, but a DC-3 did not have half the needed speed

A tl;dr is that he did experiments actually filming aircraft flying past until he managed to duplicate the film when the plane was 12 miles away.

But two huge problems; 1) at 12 miles away there's no way it could have crossed the frame that fast but any closer and it wouldn't be just a bright ellipse like in the film. 2) it only looked elliptical for a few frames before it changed position to the Sun and the illusion ended, in the original it stayed the exact same shape the whole way implying it actually was that shape
And that is how you do an experiment to gather information instead of whine that the film is useless

>KGB managed to sort of vary the amount of UFO sightings in an area simply by moving nuclear weapons to the desired locations
>when the right people are involved

yea lets move the most dangerous weapons on earth around to test some fringe shit.

Why do you need government funding to study blurry videos, idiot? There are millions of people willing to study UFOs, who spend their life doing it. There are millions of scientists who would study UFOs if there was ever anything substantial to study. The moment there is sufficient evidence to determine what a UFO is is the moment we discover what that UFO is. Until then, shut the fuck up and stop whining.

>And the US and Russian investigation did realize a correlation to nuclear bases, don't quote me on this but I read somewhere that the KGB managed to sort of vary the amount of UFO sightings in an area simply by moving nuclear weapons to the desired locations.
First of all, that never happened. You're so gullible you'll believe anything you want to hear. Second, it's meaningless. UFO sightings by whom? The soldiers who moved to that location? Or the kooks attracted by government presence and restricted access.

>Expert analysis of more footage may throw up patterns in shape and movement that can be matched to existing theory.
Then do it faggot! You are trying to have it both ways by saying this stuff isn't studied and then pulling out story after story to show it is studied. Clearly it's studied plenty, and nothing has come of it. Now there are two options: Either ufology is worthless because there is no evidence to work on, or it needs even more work. Clearly the answer is the former, and even you know it. So fuck off.

>Quote where I said that the footage proved aliens exist?
You are the only one who keeps bringing up aliens. I said ruling out one theory makes zero progress when there are endless potential theories and none of them will ever have sufficient evidence to be proven conclusively.

>Give them.
You are missing the entire point. For the rest of history, people will look back at this event looking for new hand-waving explanations to proclaim as the truth. The list of possible explanations will grow as our knowledge of science grows, forever, and our available data will stay exactly the same.

The best you can hope is that new science will bring an explanation that is NOT extraordinary, which is like waiting for Jesus to come back.

The last paragraph of your post was rhetoric that fills in nothing. There is a shitty video from shitty technology and nothing else. Not being able to definitively prove it is a familiar concept does NOT prove that it isn't one.

>>Expert analysis of more footage may throw up patterns in shape and movement that can be matched to existing theory.
>Then do it faggot!
/thread

>My initial personal view upon seeing the footage was that it was obviously aircraft judging by the speed and level flight. However seeing as the USAF themselves ruled that out I'm mystified. They do indeed look pretty disc-shaped.

The airforce has plenty of aircraft they want to keep secret. In which case UFOs are a convinient scape goat.

I think that all those UFO sightings are in fact a weather phenomenon, like little airborne tornadoes.

Earth is a television show. Your pain is our entertainment.

t. Xorblark'Ay Yl'Mao

They move them around anyway you mongoloid, Russia prefers mobile launchers as opposed to silos.
I never brought up aliens you're the one who keeps saying "hurr the footage doesn't prove aliens" well no shit, nice strawman.
The DAC analysist clearly shows that the craft really was a disc or it was so far away as to look like a disc that it had to be going over the speed of sound. No sonic booms were heard in the area notwithstanding this was fucking 1950.

If the government had a disc-shaped aircraft that worked we would have seen it by now just like how the flying wing eventually came out of the woods. They did in fact declassify a saucer aircraft (the Avrocar) and it turned out that discs make shit aircraft.

The 80's black triangle sightings maybe they were B-2s or F-117s or something but the 50's sightings nothing coming close could have existed at the time.
Well this is why I made this thread to see what Veeky Forums comes up with if they are so sure UFOs are explainable. Veeky Forums is BTFO because it can't be explained by man made or known natural phenomenon so they attack the video saying it's shit despite all the hundreds of people way smarter than them over 70 years who has said the video is interesting.

>Why do you need government funding to study blurry videos, idiot?
Amateurs are quicker to run to the alien explanation which is what annoys you. The big irony is that UFO study is tinfoil because actual trained people refuse to study it. Even if there's nothing much as yet to study there is no harm in collecting cases in the mean time. If this is "idiotic" then why does the French government do this? Their space agency still has a UFO branch to this day. The Americans and British shut theirs down. This shows that the opinion that UFOs are not worth studying is not universal
>First of all, that never happened. You're so gullible you'll believe anything you want to hear
I guess you missed the part where I said "don't quote me on this"
>You are trying to have it both ways by saying this stuff isn't studied and then pulling out story after story to show it is studied. Clearly it's studied plenty, and nothing has come of it.
Nothing has come of it? The study shows that disc shaped craft that people reported are real.

That case was studied but I already said much official support was dropped by the 1960s so no UFOs are not studied in that much detail anymore.
>Clearly the answer is the former
What do you base this on?

Anyone with either curiosity or the merest hint of intelligence.

> can't handle real mysteries, so have to invent their own
> intelligent
you have your own board for this stuff stop getting all butthurt that you weren't cut out for science.

>>>Reddit.com