I wrote a post on the topic a few years ago. As the Ted Serios case discussed there illustrates, we've had video footage of miracles for a long time. I occasionally come across more examples.
Elsewhere, I've discussed the UFO videos released to the public in recent years. Stephen Braude recently did another interview with Jeffrey Mishlove, which addresses some of the paranormal cases Braude has investigated. In the interview, he discusses some recent table levitations captured on video. Go here to watch an earlier interview with Mishlove that showed some photographs and video of table levitations. The segment here about Ariel Farias includes some video footage. Jimmy Akin recently discussed the evidence for animal telepathy, including some video of the phenomena. See here and here for a couple of relevant sections of his program. These are just some examples. I'm not trying to be exhaustive.
We need to keep in mind that the skeptical claim that we don't have good evidence for any miracles, sometimes even taking the form of claiming that miracles are never caught on video, was a weak objection from the start. And it's been getting weaker with the passing of time.
The UFO videos are interesting. Corridor Digital's "Corridor Crew" on YouTube have done several videos investigating these UFO and alien videos:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/@CorridorCrew/search?query=ufo
They even have one where they tested the viral-ability of UFO videos.
I haven't cited "these UFO and alien videos" in general, and what Corridor Crew did to "test the viral-ability of UFO videos" doesn't have much relevance. I watched one of their videos on the page you linked, and it doesn't even attempt to explain the large majority of the relevant evidence. For example, in my previous posts on UFOs, I've cited David Fravor's Congressional testimony last year. Here's a brief video of a portion of it. And here's a brief "60 Minutes" segment featuring two of the pilots involved and some comments by Christopher Mellon. As my earlier post on video evidence explains, any hypothesis about a video has to take the surrounding context into account. Corridor Crew's video doesn't say much about the surrounding context, and there are some aspects of the video footage itself that they don't address. Do you think they've offered anything that's equal to or better than a paranormal explanation of what occurred in the Nimitz episode (the one Fravor and his colleagues were involved in)? Even if we were to just go by the opinions of experts, I'd trust the Pentagon officials, Navy pilots, and other witnesses more than Corridor Crew. This isn't just a matter of how much you know about producing videos in general or in Corridor Crew's context in particular. It's also about the nature of Navy aircraft, the nature of the camera equipment involved, the data displayed within the video, etc.
DeleteHere are some portions of a 2019 interview with Chad Underwood, the pilot who filmed the Nimitz video:
Delete>>>>>
The thing that stood out to me the most was how erratic it was behaving. And what I mean by “erratic” is that its changes in altitude, air speed, and aspect were just unlike things that I’ve ever encountered before flying against other air targets. It was just behaving in ways that aren’t physically normal. That’s what caught my eye. Because, aircraft, whether they’re manned or unmanned, still have to obey the laws of physics. They have to have some source of lift, some source of propulsion. The Tic Tac was not doing that. It was going from like 50,000 feet to, you know, a hundred feet in like seconds, which is not possible….
If it was obeying physics like a normal object that you would encounter in the sky — an aircraft, or a cruise missile, or some sort of special project that the government didn’t tell you about — that would have made more sense to me. The part that drew our attention was how it wasn’t behaving within the normal laws of physics. You’re up there flying, like, “Okay. It’s not behaving in a manner that’s predictable or is normal by how flying objects physically move.”…
Well, normally, you would see engines emitting a heat plume. This object was not doing that. The video shows a source of heat, but the normal signatures of an exhaust plume were not there. There was no sign of propulsion. You could not see the thing that the ATFLIR pod should pick up 100 percent of the time: the source of heat and exhaust that a normal object flying would give you….
I didn’t get debriefed. The interesting thing was, normally, if you see something out in the middle of the ocean that’s a test project, we would get debriefed on it, one-on-one, in a dark room. Whether it’s from the folks at Edwards test site or something like that. “Hey, yes, we were testing a project. This is what you saw.” Without going into great detail, it will be like, “Yes. This is project ‘Umptysquat’” and, basically, “This is what you saw. Don’t talk about it.” That never happened, which leads me to think that it was not a government project….
Not one that they wanted to give any acknowledgment of. And, you know, I’ve got top-secret clearance with a ton of special-project clearances. So, it’s not like I wasn’t cleared to know. But, as I’m sure you’ve found in your research, to have clearance to know something, you have to have both the clearance that it’s elevated to and you have to have the “need to know” it. And, clearly, whatever it was, if it was a government project, I did not need to know….
You know, obviously, our encounter happened in 2004 — so a while back — but everything that Dave [Fravor] has put out there in the interviews is absolutely, 100 percent, exactly what happened on that day….
At no point did I want to speculate as to what I thought this thing was — or be associated with, you know, “alien beings” and “alien aircraft” and all that stuff. I’m like, “No. I do not want to be part of that community.” It is just what we call a UFO. I couldn’t identify it. It was flying. And it was an object. It’s as simple as that.
>>>>>
Note 4 in the article makes reference to another pilot who made comments similar to Underwood's:
Delete>>>>>
Former Navy F/A-18 fighter pilot Vincent “Jell-O” Aiello expressed a similar reaction to the object in the FLIR1 video during a telephone interview. “Where it looks different to me is that it has no wings like an aircraft, and there’s no perceptible heat signature from the engines or from intakes like an aircraft,” he said. “If you’re close enough to an actual aircraft and you’re tracking it, you can see heat spots at different places either leading edges of wings, where it’s hotter because of friction, or exhaust ports from where bleed air comes out, and, of course, the actual exhaust of the engines themselves.”
>>>>>
Note 11 reads:
>>>>>
A former fighter pilot currently working with the Tailhook Association, who spoke on condition of anonymity, corroborated this idea that the lack of a formal debrief for Underwood describing a top-secret aircraft would be suggestive of something more unusual than a classified test-flight program.
>>>>>