Thank you sir, for your statement. First of all, I agree with your definition, but would like to make some amendments:
Definition:
A mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found. The new nomenclature is an Unidentified Aerial Phenomena or
UAP.
Following, my rebuttals and substantives:
Summary:
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 does supposedly depict something that is not immediately recognised by the pilots. However, this statement does not equate to it being completely and, after thorough investigation, unidentifiable. This might be made clear by narrative of personnel on the scene, but many normal aircraft, like Colonel Kittinger's balloon, were mistaken too, which means that the personal on-the-spot narratives may not be accurate. There could be speculation, but the Rockwell Incident also had speculation but turned out nothing from normal. However, the identity of the Rockwell aircraft, although already found out, is still not known by many.
Foundation:
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.
Yes, I do admit the fact that they are from two different dates and three flights, but the fact remains that this piece of information does not certify that the aircraft in the videos are UFOs.
GOFAST Flight:
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.
25000 feet is normal for a jet, and so is 250 knots. No proof of extraterrestrial craft there. AutoTrack is a "vehicle swept path analysis software program used for analysing the movements of steered and wheeled vehicles including cars, trucks, trams, aircraft and other more specialist vehicles" There is nothing to suggest the craft in question is not a normal one at that.
"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.
I do not deny that they cannot immediately identify the aircraft, but pilots have been known to mistake Korean MiGs for UFOs in the Korean War. This is nothing new. The craft in question having no obvious wing shape at that moment and no contrail seems to support the hot air balloon idea, such as the example of the Rockwell Incident.
FLIR Flight:
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.
Again, 20000 feet and 250 knots is normal for a jet, but mind, could be easily miscalculated. "This video shows a very odd-shaped object in a few different spectrum" Odd shapes in the sky have become a norm since the Flying Flapjack was invented, there is no proof of extraterrestrial aircraft in that statement. Different colours can be easily explained: A steel craft flying will reflect the rays of the sun, and due to a complex chain of scientific terms, the craft may easily be seen as having changing spectrums. And mind, even a Cessna sometimes may be able to fly without fumes or contrails.
GIMBAL Flight:
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.
The supposed "UAP" looking like a TicTac is no proof of it being a UFO as even a normal aircraft looks like a mustard seed at distance. Again, nothing strange in the altitude and airspeed.
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
Flying in a fleet is nothing weird. This does nothing to prove the fact that they are abnormal aricraft.
"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.
The "UAP" rotating does not proof its extraterrestrial quality because the fact remains that any aircraft can turn, any flying thing on earth can turn. Even WW1 fighter aircraft can do that, it is nothing new.
No contrail, or exhaust. No visible structure/wings/tail etc. Genuine surprise and concern from the pilots. This would qualify as a UAP.
You obviously are of the opinion that all aircraft must have contrails at all times. That is not true. You are of the opinion that every structure of an aircraft can be identified miles away. That is not true. You are of the opinion that genuine surprise and concern from the pilots is proof that the craft in question is a UAP. That is not true. Thus, they do not yet immediately qualify as a UAP.
Admiral Roughhead's statement:
"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.
I'll eat my hat if the assessments based on only three HUD videos can be more conclusive. The Chief of Naval Operations only mentioned that currently, they are unable to reach a definite conclusion due to the lack of evidence, he did not say anything about those aircraft in the videos being completely unidentifiable.
Opponent's comments:
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 tries to convince the readers that his visual interpretation of the video is sufficient to prove the identity of the UAP's" That is a misinterpretation. My point was to say that they perform no strange activities, and can easily be classified as being normal aircraft, not that my visual evidence is enough to prove their identity. However, that does not mean that they are unidentifiable. "He fails to give a clear identification. He speculates saying things like " say, a E/A-18G Growler". " Again, my point here is that I am just giving an example to what the aircraft may be, but I am certainly not speculation that they are Growlers. "He speculates about what would be required to enter and exit space with o evidence." [
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb4prVsXkZU] "He then states that cartoon depictions of UFO flights are simply a pile of balderdash. Has he see a UFO flight to compare?" By saying that cartoon depictions are rubbish mean that the flight characteristics of spacecraft is incorrectly depicted. I may not have seen a UFO to compare, but we have spacecraft on earth, whose characteristics may be used to identify the aircraft in question. On the other hand, my opponent has also not seen a UFO to compare, and thus he cannot be definite that the aircraft in the videos are UFOs. "Has he any evidence to his speculations." Yes, I do. You, however, are insisting that they are UFOs on an unfounded basis.
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.
I do not definitely place them under the category of patrol aircraft, I am simply stating the highest possibility. My point for the latter is that a to qualify as a UFO, there should, and must, be differences from normal aircraft. Now, however, there are none.
But he won't tell us what they are. As such as he has not identified them, they remain unidentified.
I cannot clearly identify the exact type of aircraft, but I do say that they are not unidentifiable, and that they should, if not definitely, be an earthly aircraft.
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
The sites you have quoted are not entirely conclusive proof of UFOs, nor do the pilots' reactions or the quote from Adm Roughhead, because they are simply nothing new, there have been multiple similar cases, only to slip out of people's memories, and resurface a few decades later, proved to be only a normal aircraft.
"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.
I ask my opponent to clearly discredit the identifications based on evidence and not speculations, proof his stance, or concede.
Sources and credits:
Thank you.
If I have time this weekend I will.
Will you please add a vote? Thank you!
Will you guys please add votes? Thank you!
Good debate.
Well, that is technically correct. However, we are not debating on whether they can be identified as aliens or not.
I hope you two realize that arguing over the definition is useless in this case since a definition was agreed to simply by accepting the debate (the definition in the description). That is the one the voters will be using for judgement.
Odd little thought: Were it aliens, that would be identification; making them not count as UFOs anymore.
I am contending that these objects can be identified, and thus are not UFOs.
There definitely seem to be objects in those videos. Are you contending that these objects can be identified and/or that they are not flying?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52457805
Where can I find the Pentagon releases of these videos?
Thank you. Yes.
good debate topic. Is UFO defined as "any aerial phenomenon that cannot immediately be identified ?"