The Pentagon says...

[Duke]

Knowing what you do in your background Duke, do you think there are real UFO'S ?

Depends on how you define "real." The overwhelming majority are fairly easily identified. The bulk of those that are not in that group would probably be identifiable with more information. I'd say 5% or fewer are truly unidentified.

The biggest problem is the unreliability of witnesses. The ability of most people to accurately estimate size/speed/distance of things they see is beyond poor, same with the ability to identify knowns like aircraft, satellites, balloons, etc. Throw in hoaxers especially all the things that can be done with PhotoShop and CGI, and things get even worse.

 

[Paulm]

Throw in hoaxers especially all the things that can be done with PhotoShop and CGI, and things get even worse.

and now you have to also add in A.I art with photo manipulation. which has recently hit the cryptid world. photos and video are now basically useless. i agree that 95% are explainable in one way or another. a lot of art and photography groups and clubs hold contests for fantasy art type photo manipulations and hybrid types of artwork. while these are not hoaxes or frauds in themselves, the works are quickly picked up by those type players who spread them arounds as being theirs and or true finds...

 

[crux]

Those of us who have gotten a good look at one know they exist.

 

[Debi]

Those of us who have gotten a good look at one know they exist.

I believe they are out there if for no other reason the history that is involved with them prior to video manipulation abilities. And I don't think all eye witnesses have simply seen balloons/drones/whatever. It's just as easy to say "It looks like balloon or swamp gas" with no concrete proof as it is to say it's the real deal with no concrete proof. I have seen one...still don't know what it was...but I believe that they exist.

Yes, many can be identified, but there are enough out there that act above and beyond what we know that I feel the phenomena is real.

 

[Lynne]

Depends on how you define "real." The overwhelming majority are fairly easily identified. The bulk of those that are not in that group would probably be identifiable with more information. I'd say 5% or fewer are truly unidentified.

The biggest problem is the unreliability of witnesses. The ability of most people to accurately estimate size/speed/distance of things they see is beyond poor, same with the ability to identify knowns like aircraft, satellites, balloons, etc. Throw in hoaxers especially all the things that can be done with PhotoShop and CGI, and things get even worse.

Thanks Duke. I think I understand you are leaving a small window of possibility in that 5%?

 

[Duke]

Thanks Duke. I think I understand you are leaving a small window of possibility in that 5%?

5% are unidentified, meaning we don't know what they are. That doesn't mean they are alien, interdimensional, demons, time travelers, etc., it just means they're unidentified.

 

[crux]

5% are unidentified, meaning we don't know what they are.

Who is "we"?

 

[crux]

Depends on how you define "real." The overwhelming majority are fairly easily identified.

Depends on how you define "identified." For example, does that term include "swamp gas"?

 

[Debi]

 

[Duke]

Depends on how you define "identified." For example, does that term include "swamp gas"?

You'd have to ask Hynek.