The Newly Released Pentagon Videos Are Not Proof That UFOs Exist
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 3 votes and 11 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
The Pentagon has recently released three videos supposedly showing UFOs. The definition for a UFO is "any aerial phenomenon that cannot immediately be identified " However, I do not believe so. Today, we shall be debating on the fact that these videos are actual proof of Unidentified Flying Objects.
Displays no characteristics like anything we have right now.
So you see, there are no wings. You think: well, its a helicopter. But no, no helicopter could ever turn like a ping pong ball like in the videos.
It was not like anything possible in the next decade or 2.
The video released depicts an Unidentified Arial Phenomena, This is made clear by the narrative of the pilots, and by Military personal thereafter. Whilst there could be speculation as to what the video depicts. the actual identity was not, and is still not known.
The video referenced, is actually a combination of three videos from three different flights over two different dates. The three flights are "FLIR," "GOFAST" and "GIMBAL", and were made officially available for download on the militaries release website HERE. The FLIR and GOFAST were recorded in 2015 in Jacksonville Florida. GIMBAL was recorded in 2004 in California.
In this first video, the recording jet is cruising at FL250, at 250 knots. A very fast small object bolts underneath it. It appears as if the auto track tries to engage it, and after 15 seconds finally locks on. The pilot sounds very excited and starts cheering.
"What the fuck is that?" over the radio to either a co-pilot (we don't know if this is a one or two-seat version of the Hornet), or a wingman. Ths other persons asks if it was a manual or auto-tracking, and the pilot confirms it was an auto track. At 0:26 you can here the other pilot say"What the hell is that"Two pilots clearly had no idea what it was, and their expresses and responses seemed genuine. A few things to note. There is no wing shape to the object, and no exhaust or contrail.
In this video, the recording jet is cruising at FL200, and cruising at around 250 knots. This video shows a very odd-shaped object in a few different spectrum Towards the end of the 1:16 length video you see the UAP bolt off with no exhaust fumes or contrail.
This is also known as TicTac as a reference comparing the UAP to the candy because of its shape. The recording plane is at FL250, cruising at 240 knots.
At 0:02 the with the auto tracker focused on a TicTac shaped object, the pilot starts by asking"What is fucking going on bro?". The response from another pilot was"There's a whole fleet of them. Look on the SA". Pilot 1 replies"My Gosh". The second pilot states
"They are going against the wind. the wind is 120 knots." "Look at the thing dude". The second pilot then asks a clarification categorization question which the first pilot disagrees with. Finally, at the end of the short clip, you can see the UAP start to rotate. The rotation is commented on by both the pilots.
No contrail, or exhaust. No visible structure/wings/tail etc. Genuine surprise and concern from the pilots. This would qualify as a UAP.
"I've seen the videos and, at least in my time, most of the assessments were inconclusive as to what it was,"If the Chief of Naval Operations goes on record to confirm that the contents are UAP, I would call that compellingly persuasive.
My opponent tries to convince the readers that his visual interpretation of the video is sufficient to prove the identity of the UAP's, thereby meeting his debate objective. He fails to give a clear identification. He speculates saying things like " say, a E/A-18G Growler". He speculates about what would be required to enter and exit space with o evidence. He then states that cartoon depictions of UFO flights are simply a pile of balderdash. Has he see a UFO flight to compare? Has he any evidence to his speculations.
My opponent briefly touches on a comment by an unnamed or referenced source, but tries to qualify those remarks as a category of "patrol aircraft". He further states that because he believes the flight characteristics are not supernatural, they are not a UAP.
But he won't tell us what they are. As such as he has not identified them, they remain unidentified.
I trust my references above, the conduct and reaction of the pilots, and the quote from the Chief of Navy Operations, An article on space.com also states
"There is as yet no explanation or identification — official or not — for the mysterious aircraft that the pilots recorded."
There may be no conclusive or exact identification, but proving that it is nothing extraterrestrial is identification enough.
The debate title is "The Newly Released Pentagon Videos Are Not Proof That UFOs Exist", qualified by myself to include UAP, and qualified by my opponent to include the "which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found." There is nothing in the definition that supposes an extraterrestrial involvement.
My opponent's statementThere may be no conclusive or exact identification, but proving that it is nothing extraterrestrial is identification enough.is incorrect.
I quoted the Chief of Navy Operations in 2020 stating that there was no know explanation for the footage from the flights in 2004 and 2015. There have been 15 years to present a reasonable scientific explanation. No scientific explanation has been offered within that time.
My opponent in Round 2 Makes 5 references to extraterrestrials, effectively stating that UFO's = extraterrestrials. That is a scientifically flawed assumption. If a weather, celestial, or other event occurs that cannot be explained, that does not mean it is aliens. 500 years ago people did not know what lighting was. People did not know what thunder was, often attributing unknown phenomena events to deities.
Events happening that cannot be explained through current reasonable scientific methods does not mean they won't be identified at a future time when new science or technologies are available. Nor does it mean the events are unexplainable by our understanding of physics and the universe.
As 15 years have gone by without an even reasonable explanation, the videos still depict UAF/UFO's. Therefore. they still exist.