As our member Dejan here has pointed out, and also Dr. Kevin Knuth in his recent API interview, this is a common signal-to-noise-ratio problem that can be culled in part through statistical modeling, and also in part by culling the data in the following manner by raising these reports to the top: 1.) Multiple witness sightings 2.) Radar-visual sightings 3.) Reports from credible people who pursue neither fame nor money from their reports When you do that, what’s left paints a very clear picture of the physical dynamics common to the AAV phenomenon: A.) Silent loitering capability (i.e. levitation) B.) Radical accelerations far beyond aircraft and missile capabilities C.) Absence of emissions (reactionless propulsion) D.) Absence of aerodynamic control surfaces All four of those features perfectly match the predicted performance characteristics for gravitational field propulsion systems…which just so happens to be the only theoretically known method for superluminal spaceflight. The Nimitz incidents are a perfect example of this, because we have all four of those common features of AAV sightings, we have radar-visual confirmation, and multiple witnesses, and even a brief clip from a much longer and much higher resolution gun camera video of the object executing non-inertial maneuvers (and most recently, we’ve heard from military witnesses who saw the entire high-rez gun camera footage that showed the object performing these distinct maneuvers). So yes, all of this fits the ETH perfectly. Therefore it’s our best leading hypothesis, which is further correlated with the Kepler mission findings and recent developments in astrophysics and astrobiology. At this point, yes I am. Because I’ve seen a pair of these things zig-zag across the sky at thousands of miles per hour, and after my sighting I spent over 20 years studying military propulsion research and theoretical physics, and was able to rule out human technology with a high degree of confidence. That leaves the ETH, i.e. an origin not from cutting-edge contemporary human technology. The word “proof” is subjective. In general terms, the word “proof” simply means “a sufficient body of evidence to create a consensus among mainstream academic scientists.” Anyone can see the vulnerabilities in that definition – if a sufficient prejudice against a given conclusion is produced within our culture, then the burden of proof can become essentially unattainable. So “proof” is a shitty and relative standard. The more significant word is “evidence.” And we have ample evidence that AAVs are real, and exhibit a strikingly consistent performance profile. Were it not for the deeply entrained prejudices within our culture to reject the ETH explanation, this body of evidence would be sufficient (in harmony with the wealth of data from other scientific disciplines) to form a scientific consensus that we indeed are, and have been for a long time, visited by other civilizations. But given the extraordinarily high burden of proof associated with this subject by virtue of its unjustly controversial nature, we have mainstream academic jokers like Neil deGrasse Tyson publicly stating that he won’t believe in the ETH explanation until he can have dinner with an alien. That’s how absurdly high the bar has been raised via cultural programming. It’s preposterous ad unscientific to insist on that level of evidence. Not anymore. We’ve now seen three very brief and highly de-rezzed clips from much longer and higher-rez gun camera videos, and in the Nimitz case we now have witnesses coming forward who saw *the entire high-rez footage* and are now on record describing the powerfully convincing visual data they witnessed of an object zig-zagging across the sky in total defiance of inertia. So we now know that data is absolutely real, and being withheld. It’s no longer conjecture: we know that data exists, and it proves the reality of these exotic devices. No, he really isn’t. Humanoidlord absolutely believes what he’s saying. Ask him. Frankly I’m kind of stunned that anyone with an online presence could be so tone deaf to the nature of somebody’s posts: this guy isn’t “pulling our leg,” he actually believes what he’s saying. How can you not tell the difference? As I’ve clearly stated many times before, my mind is open to all kinds of possibilities: some sighting events could be weird atmospheric phenomena, others might be an unknown life form dipping in from space for a drink of atmosphere, other sightings might be time-travelling humans or drones (though for theoretical reasons this may be impossible), and other sightings still might be things that we can’t even imagine yet at our level of understanding. But I don’t give a shit about those sightings, frankly – I’m only interested in the sightings that very clearly appear to be advanced field propulsion technological devices arriving from distant locales. And that seems to represent the majority of genuinely anomalous sightings. Yeah, and he said on television that he believes that alien visitations are happening right under our noses. You’re making a logical error by conflating one scenario (the Skinwalker Ranch) with an evidently unrelated phenomenon (AAV sightings). There’s little if any reason to conflate these two examples – that’s like conflating ghost sightings with UFOs. They appear to be totally unrelated scenarios, so they should be treated as such. The truth is usually “disappointing.” That’s basically the heart of Occam’s Razor, i.e. “the most conservative explanation is usually the correct one.” The ETH is the most credible and the most conservative explanation for AAV sightings, ergo, it’s probably the correct explanation. This illogical compulsion of Vallee, which is shared by many others, to find "a more interesting explanation" is not a scientific impulse. The only compulsion should be to find the correct explanation. I haven’t studied the Skinwalker Ranch incidents, but I have heard some of the stories. And I have no idea why anyone would conflate stories like “a large dog that didn’t die when shot with a gun multiple times” with “smooth metallic devices in the sky that dramatically outperform our best jet interceptors.” How are those two things even remotely related? They’re not. It’ s important to keep the bananas and the grapefruits in different baskets, because seeking a common explanation for both is silly and unwarranted. I don’t know what’s going on with Skinwalker Ranch, and frankly I don’t care. I don’t care about ghost stories or “demonic possession” either. I’m only interested in the advanced technology operating in our airspace – because we can learn from that stuff and eventually replicate it…and that would change the world. And I’m all for changing the world, because what we have now is a toxic and totally unsustainable shit show.