• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

U.S. Military: UFO Investigations, Knowledge & Disclosure

Sure, I think that's probably a lot of it.
Clearly you don't believe the videos released show anything anomalous. You have testimony from pilots and others involved in the incidents, but you suspect that it could be some unknown advanced terrestrial tech or natural phenomenon? Did you initially subscribe to the radar malfunction theory? I'll admit to not being worried about the possibility that these things aren't alien (I'm convinced that they are); it's just a matter of time before hardcore skeptics have to come about, though I am disappointed in TTSA overall; they came out with big claims and not a ton of follow through.
The only real evidence Elizondo has released is the three movie clips, each of which has a mundane explanation. I have little doubt that every other piece of evidence they might have up their sleeves will also have mundane explanations too, like every other UFO sighting so far in the history of the world.
 
The only real evidence Elizondo has released is the three movie clips, each of which has a mundane explanation. I have little doubt that every other piece of evidence they might have up their sleeves will also have mundane explanations too, like every other UFO sighting so far in the history of the world.
We'll see. Glad you are around for all of this.
 
I've seen Mcgaha's and others' analysis of the videos that were allowed to be released and are apparently in the custody of TTSA. A lot of it is over at Metabunk:
https://www.metabunk.org/nyt-gimbal-video-of-u-s-navy-jet-encounter-with-unknown-object.t9333/

They claim that the Gimbal video is the apparently single engine of a jet aircraft at distance; it looks nothing like it. Gimbal video appears to be a circular object seen in perspective (an ellipse), with a central axis suggesting radial symmetry. To get the apparent size for comparison, you would see the rest if the aircraft at tbat range, visually, too; it's not there, they apparent!y didne get a visual on a jet. Seem to know it, because they waff!e back to the reflection explanation! Then, the c!aim is that Gimbal object only turns when camera does; no, the horizon doesn't change. Then a bird at 1300 feet. No wait, a balloon! So, none of these folks had ever seen a jet engine in infrared before? Not seen a bird? This is the same old stuff skeptics have been saying all along. Pilots and radar operators have had hundreds of recent encounteds, hundreds. Why don they release those vids? Surely if they are like what we've seen but just closer, and more detail, they wouldn't jeopardize national security.. How about the rest of the intercept vids from times past? A lot of pilots have seen these kinds of close up, and this stuff is just more of it, in the longer context of tghe phenomenon.

Heh. I hope McGaha lives a long time.
Apologies for typos; the text editor on my Kindle is the worst one ever.
 
Last edited:
The analysis is correct. These clips only show that the FLIR technology can, under certain circumstances, be deceptive.
Pilots and radar operators have had hundreds of recent encounters, hundreds
That's why the Navy wants to remove the stigma from reporting - if the technology is unreliable, they want to work out the problems. There are significant problems with hi-tech sensors in airplane operations - look at the Boeing 737 debacle for an example. It is because they are not relying on Mark I eyeballs that they are seeing this stuff.
 
https://www.metabunk.org/nyt-gimbal-video-of-u-s-navy-jet-encounter-with-unknown-object.t9333/

They claim that the Gimbal video is the apparently single engine of a jet aircraft at distance; it looks nothing like it. Gimbal video appears to be a circular object seen in perspective (an ellipse), with a central axis suggesting radial symmetry. To get the apparent size for comparison, you would see the rest if the aircraft at that range, visually, too; it's not there, they apparent!y didn't get a visual on a jet. Seem to know it, because they waffle back to the reflection explanation! Then, the c!aim is that Gimbal object only turns when camera does; no, the horizon doesn't change.
Note that we don't actually have any pilot testimony to go with the GIMBAL clip; no-one knows what the pilot actually saw with his eyes, if anything. One theory is that this clip was deliberately taken to demonstrate the effects of rotation on an ordinary infra-red trace as the plane turned.

The only person who suggests that this might be an 'internal reflection' is an ex-pilot, someone who admits he hasn't worked with FLIR, but who doesn't think this is a real object. This tends to reinforce my opinion that pilots aren't always the best people to interpret these clips. This probably was a real plane of some sort, in the far distance, moving away; it would appear to be more-or-less stationary if seen by a stationary observer, but of course
a/ the 'plane taking the footage was actually moving quite fast, along a curving path
and
b/ the FLIR camera was looking sideways while tracking the object.
This causes a parallax effect, making the object appear to move fast above the clouds, but in reality it is the combination of the movement of the plane and the tracking of the camera that causes the effect.

The elliptical shape of the trace appears to be an artifact of the system; here's a plane showing two elliptical traces for comparison- note how the ellipses rotate quite independently of the plane, therefore cannot be connected at all to the actual shape of the source.
f5fe8f34f918c16bd411c6c8d7b3897c.gif
 
Last edited:
The two vids look similar, but they are also a bit different. I really think these folks need to provide something better than what they have to the public; many are going to require "extraordinary evidence" and some will need to see them themselves, especially in the age of modern technology. The military needs to come clean as Podesta recently and so many others in the past have demanded.
 
What if they don't have any better evidence?
They may not have any they can share. They are always having to be very careful about what they say. There were hundreds of these recent encounters with visuals on the objects, too. They sound just like the old stuff (flattened top shapes, etc.) They are just unable to get any other videos or materials released. Just what you'd expect from folks who have peeled off these programs at their own risk. Bigelow likely has evidence, and I'm sure General McCasland could shed some light on things. I'm pretty sure decades of pilots and other folks who have seen these things close up have also generated films and other data; the government confiscates them, and attempts to embarrass or ridicule folks, while behind the scenes as Hillenkoetter suggested long ago, they are very concerned. I am not concerned; more will come out eventually.
 
What if they don't have any better evidence?
Personally I'm not worried in the least about lack of indisputable evidence at this point (just very annoyed); I "know" they are real, having seen them myself and read historical accounts that also tally with my experience and others' experiences; hardcore skeptics have been turned by close-enough encounters --they known they are real; anything else with those characteristics, if not alien, is something even stranger... The reports from pilots today and past and other miltary and civilian individuals are strikingly similar, so I am pretty sure what we are having is more of the same. I don't even really feel the need to argue the existence of UFOs anymore (i actually get tired of thinking about them with a little high strangeness PTSD); I am just passing along information as a courtesy for those who haven't seen UFOs or read about them, but have an interest. I desperately want intelligent folks to see them for themselves if at all possible, before they die.

I have come to two disturbing conclusions, though:
1. Some people will NEVER believe --even if one crashed on the White House. Would be false flag or some conspiracy.
2. We could be destroyed by an alien attack before we even agreed they were here. We would stand NO chance...
 
I've seen plenty of UFOs, including a classic 'saucer', but they've all been resolved into IFOs before the end of the sighting. UFOs are just IFOs that you don't have enough information, or enough time, to identify.
If you were able to see your own sighting from another angle, or a closer distance, you would probably be able to identify it yourself.
 
Last edited:
2. We could be destroyed by an alien attack before we even agreed they were here. We would stand NO chance...
This is probably, but not necessarily, true. Travelling from star to star is a very high-energy, expensive business; it is entirely possible that by the time an alien ship reaches our system, it has almost completely expended its resources and reduced in size to a minimal payload. Think of the Apollo missions; a ship as high as two statues of Liberty was reduced to something the size of a Volkswagen when it returned to Earth. Any group of travellers that has just arrived in our system might need our help much more than we need them.
 
Something like that, yes. Certainly, if we attempted to use known technology to travel to the nearest stars, we would arrive after decades of travel, in a tiny command module that would barely have enough fuel to decelerate. We wouldn't have enough power left over to destroy one city, let alone a planet-sized civilisation.
 
Something like that, yes. Certainly, if we attempted to use known technology to travel to the nearest stars, we would arrive after decades of travel, in a tiny command module that would barely have enough fuel to decelerate. We wouldn't have enough power left over to destroy one city, let alone a planet-sized civilisation.
That rather assumes the use of the same technology that we currently have.
Nobody's going to make a journey to the stars with our current level of technology.
 
If you were able to see your own sighting from another angle, or a closer distance, you would probably be able to identify it yourself.
I don't think there is any chance of that. Other folks who have seen them closer up or have engaged them = same thing.
 
No-one has engaged them. All the tales of Close Encounters are just that, tales.
 
That rather assumes the use of the same technology that we currently have.
Nobody's going to make a journey to the stars with our current level of technology.
We are at least two hundred years away from even attempting a manned interstellar voyage, even using designs we can currently envisage. The most detailed design for an interstellar ship using forseeable technology, Project Daedalus, requires that we establish deuterium mines in the atmosphere of our local gas giants just to obtain enough fuel.
 
No-one has engaged them. All the tales of Close Encounters are just that, tales.
There have been plenty of attempted intercepts with visuals; going far back --we just can't outperform the objects. Sometimes they have also simultaneously been seen by folks on the ground, radars, etc. Redmond, Iran come to mind but there are many, many others.
https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/docu...classified-documents/ufo/us_gov_iran_case.pdf

https://www.fold3.com/image/6958474
 
Last edited:
The Tehran case was a misperception of Jupiter, compounded by faulty equipment on the F-4 Phantom jet. There may even have been an actual intruder involved (see below). Of course, even if this was an encounter with aliens, rather than celestial bodies, the 'planes never got anywhere near their target.

I've analysed the various versions of the report elsewhere, and noted that there are several discrepancies; but I'm happy to accept the testimony of Lt Parviz Jafari as being slightly more reliable than the earliest reports, which is a reversal of my normal practice. Jafari has at least been consistent and I have no reason to think he is misremembering.

To me the most interesting part of the event happened right at the end, and seems to indicate that there is a mundane explanation for some of the details.
Beeper
Sixth was the beeping transponder located by Jafari and the helicopter crew the next day, apparent physical evidence of intelligent technology. And so it probably was. Col. Mooy noted that the beeping transponder appeared to be from an American C-141. These large transport aircraft carried such transponders designed to be released in the event of a crash, but they'd been having problems with the beepers being ejected simply by turbulence over the mountains just north of Tehran.
What was an American transponder doing in the middle of a supposed alien encounter? This makes no sense - unless the encounter was at least partly caused by an unknown but perfectly mundane aircraft in some sort of difficulty. At the time, Iran was an ally of the US, and was using mostly American equipment; but they don't seem to have been managing or maintaining these resources very well.
 
That's certainly an interesting twist on the case! Could be. Do you accept any of the photographic evidence as genuinely anomalous, such as the Trent photos or Heflin photos, Nellis footage is US test ?
 
Last edited:
A spherical object with a green afterburner sounds a lot like a bolide to me. Green is a common colour associated with meteors because of one of the excited states of oxygen.
https://leonid.arc.nasa.gov/meteor.html
Maybe:
'According to Iranian sources, the CIA’s intelligence drones displayed astonishing flight characteristics, including an ability to fly outside the atmosphere, attain a maximum cruise speed of Mach 10, and a minimum speed of zero, with the ability to hover over the target. Finally, these drones used powerful ECM that could jam enemy radars using very high levels of magnetic energy, disrupting navigation systems. '
 

Here are photos purportedly showing this debris. It all looks like scrap, industrial waste and slag to me. The exact processes used to create these offcuts and waste material could be quite challenging to identify, but I have little doubt that it was made on Earth by humans. The material was sent to Art Bell anonymously, which is where the 'chain of custody' ends, assuming this is the same material.

EAWHx4ZU4AAfFQ-.jpgbild1-1.jpg
aad0638db5bd2a243a654ddeb3dda643.jpg
 
Here are photos purportedly showing this debris. It all looks like scrap, industrial waste and slag to me. The exact processes used to create these offcuts and waste material could be quite challenging to identify, but I have little doubt that it was made on Earth by humans. The material was sent to Art Bell anonymously, which is where the 'chain of custody' ends, assuming this is the same material.

View attachment 19376View attachment 19377
View attachment 19375
There is no real way to know just by looking at it. From what I've read, they aren't absolutely claiming an ET source for it they are just trying to figure out what it is. It might indeed be terrestrial. I don't know why everything coming from UFOs has to be so extraordinary --some of it might not be. Some of it might be the byproduct of some anomalous process we are unfamiliar with. I suspect, since TTSA wouldn't be allowed to bring out some top secret sample or something in the custody of the private sector, that they are just collecting weird stuff from the public and other UFO researchers (Linda Moulton Howe in this case, iirc.) and hoping that they are also anomalous.
To your point, this object was going around for a while with a UFO story (hoax) and it was terrestrial --it just looks weird:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...e-sky-that-UFO-hunters-say-is-proof-of-aliens
Supposedly in this slide photo montage, there is only one piece with anomalous characteristics and it isn't the one above, and Elizondo won't reveal which one:
https://silvarecord.com/2019/03/17/...etamaterials-ufo-program-alive-well-elizondo/
 
I was in Wold Newton today; this small Yorkshire town was the location of a meteor fall in 1793, which was observed and recovered. The prevailing theory at the time was that meteors were Earth-based matter, raised up to the skies in some fashion, like hailstones. The Wold Newton meteor was taken to London, examined and exhibited, and became an important part of the increasing burden of evidence that meteors come from outer space.

Note the difference between this evidence, and the treatment of it, and the so-called metamaterials of today. No-one covered anything up, no-one kept it in a cupboard for years; anyone who wanted to examine the Wold Newton stone could do so, provided they had the necessary resources. That is how to change a paradigm.
 
Okay, here's one of the contentious e-mails from Elizondo
From: Elizondo, Luis D CIV (US)
Sent Thursday, August 17, 2017 9:43 AM
To: Russo, Michael C CIV WHS ESD (US)
Subject FW: ATTN: Russo - DOPSR Request-Part 1

Attachments: GoFast.wmv

—Original Message—
From: Elizondo, Luis D CIV (US)
Sent: Wednesday, August 9,2017 4:20 PM
To: WHS Pentagon ESD Mailbox DOPSR cwhs.nentatmn <»<;H mhv Hrmcr/mmaii cmii ^ J K
Cc: (b)(6)
Subject: ATTN: Russo - DOPSR Request-Part 1

Greetings Michael and thank you once again for your assistance-One more e-mail to follow (three in total due to sizelimitations).
Per your guidance, please find the attached three .mpg files for your review. Please note, although the files are UNCLASSIFIED, they are being sent via SIPR in the spirit of extra precaution. No locational data is provided in any of the files and therefore there should be no classification issues.
STRATEGIC ISSUE: Unmanned aerial vehicles (balloons, commercial UAVs, private drones such as quadcopters, etc) continue to pose a potential threat to DoD facilities, equipment, and location. Army, Navy, and Air Force have all acknowledged the potential threat by UAS' to DoD equities but no single UNCLASSIFIED repository exists to share this information across all stakeholders.
PURPOSE: Our collective purpose is to eventually establish an UNCLASSIFIED database or "Community of Interest" of related signature data to be accessible by stakeholders such as DIA, the Navy, Defense Industry partners, and perhaps even State, Local & Tribal authorities to catalog and identify specific UAS threats to national security and/or DoD equities. By creating a virtual library to catalog and analyze each event, our hope will be to better understand the capabilities, and ultimately vulnerabilities of these systems.
Please let me know if I can assist any further with this request.
Sincerest Regards,

Lue
See the problem? In this email to Michael Russo, Elizondo mentions a shed-load of mundane phenomena that might cause potential threats (bolding mine). He does not mention that he is going to release these (apparently mundane) videos and spin them to pretend that they show alien craft with unusual performance characteristics. His denial does not address this.
 
Last edited:
They wouldn;t get anywhere by stating that they have alien devices buzzing our military. Re-read Elizondo's statement:



https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/exclusive-luis-elizondo-statement

Did the Dept. of Defense authorize the release of three purported UFO videos in 2017 and 2018? That question has largely been settled but continues to generate questions among some researchers.

This week, in response to a FOIA request, the Pentagon released additional information about the email communications between the requester Luis Elizondo (pictured) and the DOD. After reading some of the hostile comments posted on social media,

George Knapp reached out to Lue Elizondo for further comment. Elizondo sent this statement:

"Once again, this is yet another attempt by a few antagonists to bend facts around their false narrative. What the emails actually prove is as follows:

1) I did indeed work in AATIP

2) I was in a Senior position

3) The videos were coordinated for release the proper way and the decision was a group decision

4) The Pentagon and not Luis Elizondo approved release

As for the notion by the conspiracy theorist that some how I released the videos under false pretenses is further negated by the following:

A) At the time of the request, AATIP was still a small and sensitive program that I was not at liberty to discuss among a broader audience. As such, I used the term UAS as a general phrase that people could understand without specifically highlighting UAPs.

B) That individuals who were also part of the AATIP and UAP effort and who ultimately authorized the release were CCd on all the emails so those who needed to know, absolutely knew. This is the "OCA" or better known as the Original Classification Authority. This is evident by the fact that the Pentagon chose to redact their names, namely because they are still part of the effort and work at the Pentagon.

C) It was the Pentagon and not me who believed releasing the videos to a broader audience would be easier. One can read my emails to see I wanted to keep the videos protected but they felt releasing them at the unrestricted level would be easier and more efficient.

D) The reason why it reads "Not Applicable" under the section "PUBLICATION" is because last I checked you can't "publish a video" you "release a video". As such, I did not want to confuse DOPSR by indicating I wanted to publish the videos...we wanted to release them instead. Proper English grammar.

---Luis Elizondo

It's a miracle that any videos were released at all.
And:
https://nypost.com/2019/05/22/the-pentagon-finally-admits-it-investigates-ufos/
And you are missing the forest for the trees; they had hundreds of encounters just recently; I am sure data was collected from those incidents too. Not to be released.
 
Back
Top