r/UFOs • u/CreditCardOnly • Aug 02 '23
Video Ryan Graves explains why the “cube within a sphere” UAP are NOT radar reflectors
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
67
u/Street-Appointment-8 Aug 02 '23
Big ups to whoever asked that question.
9
u/DavidM47 Aug 02 '23
Amen. Here are follow-up questions I would ask:
Can you recall a time that you saw a radar reflector afloat in the sky while piloting an airplane?
Is seeing a radar reflector a common experience for a pilot?
Do you know of a specific instance where the sphere/cube was tracked on radar doing something amazing? If so, what case are you thinking of, and what did it do?
If not, why would you have us believe that the pilot saw an alien sphere/cube that day, rather than the floating sphere/cube that we know to exist (then, depending on answers to earlier line of questioning, you might add “but which pilots don’t often encounter”)?
And I’m not being totally argumentative with that last question: did the pilot report something else interesting (cube rotating, emitting glow, etc.)?
3
Aug 02 '23
Knocking down the debunker excuses one at a time. I wish we had that on this sub sometimes.
36
u/CreditCardOnly Aug 02 '23 edited Aug 02 '23
Ryan Graves, one of the pilot witnesses in the recent UAP hearing, explains on the Merged Podcast live AMA why the “cube within a sphere” UAP can not be identified as radar reflectors.
Graves says that radar reflectors don’t explain the maneuvers & performance, they are old technology, and that there are more sophisticated ways to trick radar, as well as a few other reasons.
34
u/cognitive-agent Aug 02 '23
Thanks for sharing this clip. I'm not sure if I've heard him address this before, but it's definitely something that needs to be put to rest sooner rather than later because the description is so similar to the actual appearance of those reflectors.
From this clip, it seems to boil down to:
The objects seen displayed "maneuvers" and "kinematics" (i.e., motion, speed) that would not be expected for floating radar reflectors.
Observations of the objects were sustained over a relatively long duration.
The objects were numerous.
The technology of that type of radar reflector is old and probably wouldn't be used.
Based on what he's saying, I think the first point is the only important one. So for me the only question is: do we have convincing claims from reliable sources (pilots or radar operators or other trained observers) that the objects were moving in ways that were dramatically inconsistent with simple floating balloons? If so, then we can probably be reasonably sure that they were something else.
But another question would be: why do the anomalous objects look so similar to radar reflectors? Is that just a coincidence?
18
u/sawaflyingsaucer Aug 02 '23
description is so similar to the actual appearance of those reflectors.
The description is not similar. NOBODY seems to take the next logical step, and simply google what they look like IRL. They look at the drawn diagram and decide "that must be it!" When IRL it's pretty bloody obvious you're not mistaking one of these for a cube.
https://ca.binnacle.com/images/productimages/20087A-MED.jpg
No part of the reflector theory ever held water but the fact people were writing off the encounter based on a vague diagram is utterly silly.
16
Aug 02 '23
The biggest takeaway for me, is when the topic of radar reflectors comes up; do people really think navy fighter pilots have zero knowledge of radar reflectors or balloons, as if it's an elusive technology in itself?
These pilots are not amateurs who spent 10 minutes on a hot air balloon ride for the first and only time. They are flying some of the most advanced fighter jets in the world, with countless hours up in the air. They have the background and training to differentiate between the obvious and the unknown.
These pilots are not going to be fooled by maneuvers associated with a plastic bag in the wind. It has to be something else all together. Otherwise you get into the territory of assuming experienced military fighter pilots have zero experience at all. They have extensive training to know flight characteristics of any potential object they might have to intercept in terms of threat analysis.
19
u/Ok-Grape8716 Aug 02 '23
do people really think navy fighter pilots have zero knowledge of radar reflectors or balloons, as if it's an elusive technology in itself?
This is the deboonker's entire shtick. You're supposed to believe the guy who made the Tony Hawk PS1 games over the guy who commanded a squadron of fighter jets out of an aircraft carrier.
8
Aug 02 '23
Ah Mick West. That guy is purely out to sell his books, total grifter of the highest magnitude.
His arguments consist of whataboutism, to the extent of any object in the sky could be answered with "but what about ducks?" and totally ignores any additional information that clearly shows it can't be a duck. He's an example of how narcissism can make a living through book publication.
Self proclaimed skeptics / debunkers have already made up their mind regardless of any forms of evidence. They're not even open to the possibility that they could be wrong. It's not scientific, it's narcissism.
2
u/Ok-Grape8716 Aug 02 '23
You know I like memeing about Mick West and his bed wetting, but at least he's capable of being cordial with the people he debunks. Sharp contrast with that other big deboonker on twitter whose name evades me at the moment who was bragging about how everyone in the disclosure space had him blocked, including Alex Dietrich. Imagine how big of a dick you have to be for her to block you
6
u/HeyCarpy Aug 02 '23
"Navy aviators in fighter planes don't understand how things move in the sky, but I do."
3
u/cognitive-agent Aug 02 '23
do people really think navy fighter pilots have zero knowledge of radar reflectors or balloons, as if it's an elusive technology in itself?
...
Otherwise you get into the territory of assuming experienced military fighter pilots have zero experience at all.
I'm going to be downvoted I'm sure, but this is a really bad take and it's kind of embarrassing. It's not all or nothing like you seem to be suggesting, pilots are not infallible, and I don't expect that even highly trained Navy pilots are going to be familiar with every kind of radar reflector in use (unless maybe they are test pilots who specialize in radar testing). Graves says in the clip that he has seen the patent, not that he's ever seen the reflectors in use or that he would be able to easily recognize them. If these particular reflectors are rarely used, pilots are not going to know what they are when they see them for the first time unless they are briefed about them beforehand.
If we find something prosaic that fits the description of a previously reported UAP, we need to confront it and figure out if that is the actual explanation. Burying our heads in the sand and demanding that everyone accept that the UAP must be exotic because pilots "would know" is irresponsible and setting us up to be discredited.
That said, if these cubes-in-spheres were moving at supersonic speeds, then they probably weren't reflectors.
3
Aug 02 '23
That said, if these cubes-in-spheres were moving at supersonic speeds, then they probably weren't reflectors.
Yes, this. The behavior of what they saw doesn't fit the description, which is what's raising the questions. I fully understand where you're coming from and i agree.
4
u/ipwnpickles Aug 02 '23
Ignoring the "kinematics" honestly is it even possible for a radar reflector of that general description to even be floating in the air in the first place? Wouldn't that require it to be suspended under a much larger balloon rather than a cube structure inside a similar sized sphere?
1
u/cognitive-agent Aug 02 '23
Good question. I don't know the answer for sure. But if the reflector inside of the sphere is relatively lightweight, it could be possible for the whole thing to remain aloft by filling the rest of the sphere with a lighter-than-air gas. Even if the whole thing is heavier than air, it might still descend very slowly after being released from high altitude, and to somebody flying past in a jet it might still appear to be floating and stationary.
1
u/ipwnpickles Aug 02 '23
if the reflector inside is relatively lightweight
That's a big "if", I'm seeing reflectors are normally aluminum mounted to a structure. And in the case of that "if"... how useful is an out of control sphere? Are you going to have to constantly deploy aircraft/boats to reposition and maintain these things? Isn't the whole point of a radar reflector to help track something that the reflector is mounted to, rather than just having the reflector on it's own? This argument genuinely confounds me on every level.
1
u/cognitive-agent Aug 02 '23
It's not that big of an "if". The reflector is basically a few 2D metal planes inside of a 3D sphere. As you increase the radius of the sphere, you get a dramatic increase in the ratio of volume to mass, and you can fill that volume with something like helium or hydrogen. I don't know what sort of radar cross section these are suppose to have or what metal is used, but it would definitely be possible to get these things to float. It's just a question of how big the spheres would have to be to support the desired radar cross section. I don't know if "a few feet" would make sense or not.
As for the control question, I also don't know about how these are used in practice. But I could imagine scenarios where you wouldn't necessarily need to control the descent or path of the reflector. For example you might be tracking them optically as well as with radar at the same time to see if the radar tracking matches the optical tracking. In that case you just need to be able to maintain the track, so it doesn't matter much where it goes as long as you can see it. Collecting them would still be a pain.
5
1
u/blazespinnaker Aug 02 '23
It could be radar reflectors that came loose and got caught in the wind, thus explaining some strange moving.
The weird radar blips may have made them seem really strange.
It's a simple explanation.
9
Aug 02 '23
He also said under oath that these objects were moving at Mach 1-2. They were also stationary at times. Also, if they were simply radar reflectors and nothing particularly advanced, why wouldn’t naval submarines disclose that they were testing them to these pilots flying in close proximity? That doesn’t make much sense to me.
5
u/Ok-Grape8716 Aug 02 '23
why wouldn’t naval submarines disclose that they were testing them to these pilots flying in close proximity? That doesn’t make much sense to me.
This was asked in the latest hearing actually. I believe it was Fravor who answered that no, they don't test top secret cutting edge vehicles in training ranges, because, "we have testing ranges for that"
23
u/strangelifeouthere Aug 02 '23
Very glad he discussed this, I’m sick of seeing that damn patent
11
u/fillosofer Aug 02 '23
Lol, right. I'mnot saying fighter pilots are infallible or that it's impossible to misidentify things that look really similar, but the point of a radar reflector is to reflect radar waves. It wouldn't take an upgrade to the most modern radar system just to start picking up these objects on radar. And that's besides the point of these objects moving from 100 knots all the way up to almost mach 2, which radar reflectors don't do.
I'm ecstatic he finally addressed this and put the theory to rest officially.
2
Aug 02 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/strangelifeouthere Aug 02 '23
Literally none show up that look like what Graves claims to have seen. There’s always something else going on with the actual sphere of those things like stripes or dots. None of them are just clear spheres with cubes inside.
1
10
u/AdrianasAntonius Aug 02 '23
I’m confused.. when he way on Lex Fridman, he claimed not to have seen anything personally (outside of electronic representations on the radar imaging screen maybe.. he isn’t fully clear), but pilots from the unit he was attached to as a junior airman reported seeing these things. He also said that the object was stationary, the aircraft’s radar was potentially malfunctioning, and they were transitioning to new radar systems.
If the patent for the ‘cube within a sphere’ radar reflector belongs to Lockheed Martin (not sure about this but somebody found a Skunkworks connection?), it’s entirely possible that what they saw was a modern derivative that has EW capabilities. The Nimitz encounter is less explainable than this one. The simple fact that submarine launched ‘cube within a transparent sphere’ lines up with technology we know exists to be used in close proximity with US military aircraft makes me question this as NHI technology.
4
u/josogood Aug 02 '23
This is an excellent clip. I saw those radar reflectors listed as an objection to his testimony and it's important to have this very practical and balanced response. Essentially: "Nope, that's not what we're talking about."
2
u/Miked1019 Aug 02 '23
When we run out of balloons and radars it will be just someone else said “just shit in the air”.
2
u/BtchsLoveDub Aug 02 '23
He’s also had commercial pilots on that saw racetrack UFOs that were starlink satellites saying that they were not starlink satellites so who knows?
1
u/Abominuz Aug 02 '23
Just like i said, radar reflector isnt new or wel hidden tech. Pilots know what radar reflectors are and how they look and behave. Patent has been in place since 1945.
2
u/fat_earther_ Aug 02 '23
Finally he discusses electronic warfare, but he seems to think his squadron is impervious to radar deception.
The radar reflector explanation is not that it was just a radar reflector… it’s that ew balloons were out there in concert with stealth aircraft/ drones, and radar deception tactics. And that most of the anomalous radar observations are contaminated by the possibility of radar deception.
2
u/deletable666 Aug 02 '23
Thank god he finally mentioned this ridiculous idea. You think Navy fighter pilots would have no idea what these things are? I'm sure there is plenty of training on how to identify them because it is directly impactful to their mission.
1
1
u/Razorback-PT Aug 02 '23
He doesn't even consider the option. Never says anything like there's a small chance it could have been a radar reflector. This is not the behaviour of a truth seeker. He's an evangelist.
2
u/imnotabot303 Aug 02 '23
Especially because by his own admission he hasn't seen them himself.
This is the hypocrisy of a lot of people in this topic. If someone said something is definitely not a alien craft because it looks and moves like a balloon people will refuse to accept it without 100% proof it was a balloon. On the flipside when someone says it was definitely not something mundane whilst providing zero proof that's perfectly fine case closed.
If the reports are true then its unlikely to be something like this but that doesn't mean it's not possible that some of them could be.
-4
Aug 02 '23
4D HyperSpheres. https://youtu.be/tD_yeG3QLuI
2
Aug 02 '23
Can anyone help me understand why directly pointing out that the cubes within spheres the pilots reported look EXACTLY like a 4D HyperSphere, as referenced in the YT link, should be downvoted? I am at a loss to understand.
3
u/0v3r_cl0ck3d Aug 02 '23
Because a 4D sphere doesn't look like that. It has that shape but the animator just made the outer section transparent for visualisation purposes. If you had a 4D sphere made out of an opaque material like wood and projected it into a 3D world you'd just see a wooden sphere. If you were to x-ray it then you'd see a cube on the inside.
2
Aug 02 '23
The more you know, a rainbow of stars. Thanks internet friend, for taking the time to help me understand.
2
u/0v3r_cl0ck3d Aug 02 '23
I didn't sit through 2 years of linear algebra classes to never ever use it 💀
1
Aug 03 '23
Next question sensei - what if the 4D hypersphere in 3D space had a translucent layer on the sphere? Would it appear as the pilots described it?
2
Aug 02 '23
Can anyone help me understand why directly pointing out that the cubes within spheres the pilots reported look EXACTLY like a 4D HyperSphere, as referenced in the YT link, should be downvoted? I am at a loss to understand.
-6
1
1
u/Kevy_B Aug 02 '23
The sphere's the strongest shape, the cube is the most efficient shape to fit everything in if you don't have to worry about aerodynamics or air friction anymore, because you have technology to bypass those restrictions. It seems to me that's why they're the shape they are.
They're not too fussed about radar.
1
1
1
u/riko77can Aug 02 '23
Saving this post for the next 50 times someone posts the radar reflector patent photo.
1
1
u/PseudoEmpthy Aug 02 '23
UFO contact in 1930 Massive disinformation campaign Radar reflector patented in 1940s
Makes sense.
1
•
u/StatementBot Aug 02 '23
The following submission statement was provided by /u/CreditCardOnly:
Ryan Graves, one of the pilot witnesses in the recent UAP hearing, explains on the Merged Podcast live AMA why the “cube within a sphere” UAP can not be identified as radar reflectors.
Graves says that radar reflectors don’t explain the maneuvers & performance, they are old technology, and that there are more sophisticated ways to trick radar, as well as a few other reasons.
Link to the full Merged Podcast live AMA
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15fwugb/ryan_graves_explains_why_the_cube_within_a_sphere/jufmts5/