Bizarre UAVs Incident By The U.S. Navy

[Jakin]

Hello everyone,

In July 2019, the US Navy had some unusual encounters with UAVs.

Despite the event lasting almost three hours, none of the warships involved appear to have been able to identify the UAVs.

Enjoy the read.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...us-drones-off-california-over-numerous-nights

Many greetings
Jakin

 

[Tanglebones]

Sounds very much like the well known Nimitz incident in the same area a few years ago. As such, it will be very interesting to see how the sceptics explain the sightings. Lens flare? Fata Morgana? Maybe even misidentified seagulls or swamp gas!

 

[eburacum]

Apart from aliens, there are two or three possibilities. The recent rash of drone sightings in Colorado seems to have been almost completely a case of misidentification; a film crew taped a suspected drone, which turned out on analysis to be a (manned) Cessna cargo plane. Other sightings were probably celestial bodies such as planets or stars; if you see a flashing light that remains nearly stationary for hours on end, it is probably a bright star. Some recent sightings have turned out to be Google Loon balloons, but those have now been discontinued.

Other than misidentifications, the possibility is experimental UAVs flown by the US military themselves. I would be quite skeptical of this, except that there are several current programs aimed at improving UAV performance, including longer duration flights, submarine-launches, and anti-drone designs.
In a decade or two many or most warplanes (and a wide selection of other craft) will be unmanned.

 

[kamalktk]

One excerpt of the article would seem to be unlikely to be a misidentification due to the proximity. With the "SNOOPIE teams" described in the article, there would definitely be multiple sources of photo/video of this.

"Among the more dramatic entries in the logs from this incident is the one below from the USS Rafael Peralta, describing a white light hovering over the ship's flight deck."

A bit more about the ship type involved here, with plenty of photos, https://www.military.com/equipment/ddg-51-arleigh-burke-class-destroyer

 

[eburacum]

Well, where are the photos then?

 

[eburacum]

A hovering white light suggests a planet or star to me, of course.

 

[Jakin]

Hello,

When I read this report this morning, I had only one thought: Should we be worried that the US Navy cannot intercept UAVs after three hours?
OK, planets and stars can't be intercepted, but surely the US Navy will recognise that?

Many greetings
Jakin

 

[kamalktk]

Well, where are the photos then?

Any photos or video of the event are likely to be quite classified and unavaialable, whether they show a star or uav, purely for military reasons.

 

[feinman]

I think if we hang on until June we may see a lot of it --or at least know more; I am encouraged by the recent interview with Ratcliffe --it makes public acknowledgment seem inevitable now.

 

[eburacum]

Any photos or video of the event are likely to be quite classified and unavaialable, whether they show a star or uav, purely for military reasons.

Well, exactly. Even if we do get to see these movies, and find reasonable explanations for them, the authorities are likely to refuse to discuss them in detail, like Elizondo did recently.

If we analyse these data too closely, we are likely to discover just how limited their detection systems are. Nothing to do with aliens; just good old national security.

 

[feinman]

Well, exactly. Even if we do get to see these movies, and find reasonable explanations for them, the authorities are likely to refuse to discuss them in detail, like Elizondo did recently.

If we analyse these data too closely, we are likely to discover just how limited their detection systems are. Nothing to do with aliens; just good old national security.

I certainly hope there is something in this report that will provide enough evidence and be convincing to you, Eburacum. I am very optimistic this time The stuff seen so far is controvertible and was declassified footage for that reason.
I think we might see:

1. Data from NORAD in conjunction with ground sensor data.
2. Footage of objects which drop down to hover over sensitive areas like missile silos and then shoot up and off into space.
3. Objects coming out of water.
4. Footage of objects flying off the wing of our fighter aircraft and then taking off at immense speed.
3. The Triangle photo.

 

[Tanglebones]

Apart from aliens, there are two or three possibilities. The recent rash of drone sightings in Colorado seems to have been almost completely a case of misidentification; a film crew taped a suspected drone, which turned out on analysis to be a (manned) Cessna cargo plane.

With the greatest respect ebu, drone sightings in Colorado are not really comparable to 'drone' sightings off the coast of California. In order to make such sightings equal, then you are going to have to account for differences in altitude, social attitude, even the incidence in drug taking amongst the the local population. People see things.

 

[eburacum]

Yes, there are many differences. Naval recruits could be relatively young and in an unfamiliar and potentially challenging environment, so they might even be more likely to misidentify celestial bodies as drones.
In 2013 the US Navy had an average age of 29.

 

[kamalktk]

Well, exactly. Even if we do get to see these movies, and find reasonable explanations for them, the authorities are likely to refuse to discuss them in detail, like Elizondo did recently.

If we analyse these data too closely, we are likely to discover just how limited their detection systems are. Nothing to do with aliens; just good old national security.

With the "SNOOPIE" teams using commercial recording equipment, the video from those wouldn't give away the specifications of military detection equipment. While the public doesn't have access to photo/video to analyse the event, there clearly would be some they analysed internally.

The various ships are shown in the article to have been sailing in different directions, which would presumably rule out misidentification of a star above the bow of the ship, and there is the confirmation from the cruise ship as well. Additionally the level of internal scrutiny with multiple agencies up to the top of the Navy being involved in the investigation, which certainly seems like it would make misidentification of a star less likely, as some trained image analyst would would quickly identify it as such and swiftly end the investigation.

I'm inclined to think of something like St. Elmo's Fire being the cause. While I don't know the weather conditions, I wouldn't be surprised at all if those destroyers put out a lot of electric discharge given their high powered detection systems, and I suppose an otherwise favorable weather conditions could allow the ships to essentially create their own St. Elmo's Fire.

 

[eburacum]

Which sighting do you interpret as being 'above the bow of the ship'? Any sighting would presumably have been above some part of the ship, if seen from another part of the ship?

 

[eburacum]

From the War Zone article:

One thing is fairly sure: the U.S. Navy has a large amount of data on these events. The documents above reflect that multiple independent photographic intelligence teams were deployed. These teams are only a small part of a sophisticated suite of surveillance capabilities and advanced sensors, including the ability to detect radio emissions in the vessels’ vicinity, available to any one of the ships involved. This is on top of the land-based sensors that closely surveil the area. In fact, it is puzzling that those sensors, coupled with a likely extensive photographic record, were not sufficient in and of themselves to resolve the matter. This calls into question the “drone” designation. Was there ever even a hard description of these craft beyond lights in the sky?

Lights in the sky are not necessarily drones. But that is the interpretation everyone jumps to in the current era.
I am reminded of the Gatwick drone hysteria - there was no proof that drones were involved there, either.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/01/the-mystery-of-the-gatwick-drone

Tingley admitted that there was “always a possibility that there may not have been any genuine drone activity in the first place”.

 

[kamalktk]

Which sighting do you interpret as being 'above the bow of the ship'? Any sighting would presumably have been above some part of the ship, if seen from another part of the ship?

One of the lights was stated to be above the helicopter landing pad on the ship, I think that would make it visually above the bow as seen from the bridge.

 

[eburacum]

Maybe - but who says the witness was on the bridge? And if they were, that is only one point of view- it could have been a planet or star.

I like the St Elmo's Fire idea- I've recently read an account by Sir Alec Guinness describing this phenomenon, from when he was in the Navy during WWII. Very spooky.

 

[Wreckless]

Marco Rubio: "There's Stuff Flying Over US Bases, And Nobody Knows What It Is"

WEDNESDAY, MAR 24, 2021 - 11:30 PM

Chatter about UFOs among current and former government officials appears to be ramping up ahead of the June 1 release of a UFO report by the Pentagon and spy agencies.

A TMZ reporter caught up with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) at Reagan National Airport on Monday and questioned him about UFOs, according to Mediaite. Rubio, who is also a member of the Senate Committee on Intelligence, revealed he is concerned about UFOs buzzing over US military bases.
There's stuff flying over military installations, and nobody knows what it is and it isn't ours," he said, adding that it's logical to want to identify these unidentified flying objects. "It's common sense, right?"
Rubio said objects are flying over military bases, "and we don't know what they are."

"I think the worry is that there's stuff flying over our facilities, and we don't know what they are," said the senator. "You know what I mean? So that's the concern. Maybe it's the other logical explanation to it."
The TMZ reporter asked Rubio if aliens from another galaxy or China possess a more significant threat to US military installations. The senator responded that he doesn't know the origins of the unidentified objects.

"There's stuff flying over the top of our military installations and they don't know who's flying it, they don't even know who it is," Rubio added. "So that's a problem. We need to find out if we can."
The senator added that aliens must be more technologically advanced than humans if they "made it all the way here" when "we can't get there."

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopoliti...flying-over-us-bases-and-nobody-knows-what-it​

 

[MercuryCrest]

Doesn't this sound strangely familiar to the response to the UFO reports in the '60's?

"There's stuff flying over the top of our military installations and they don't know who's flying it, they don't even know who it is," Rubio added. "So that's a problem. We need to find out if we can."

 

[EnolaGaia]

Doesn't this sound strangely familiar to the response to the UFO reports in the '60's? ...

And the 50s ...

And the 40s ...

 

[Zeke Newbold]

I am puzzled by the U.S Navy's repeated use of the words `drone` and `UAV` to describe the lights in the sky that were seen. The usual designation for such an even would be `U.F.O` - which is an official and neutral term in itself (despite any trappings it may have gathered). Or, if they wished to be more delicate about it they could have said UAP (Unidentified Ariel Phenomenon). But no...the report is all `Drone this` and `UAV that`.

The use of such language implies that the Navy personnel felt confident enough to identify what they were seeing (even though the report only speaks of lights in the sky). Deliberate obfuscation? Or is the term `drone` just a new catch all phrase to replace UFO?

 

[eburacum]

I'm sure that 'drone' is the new buzzword for unidentified aerial phenomenon, which we used to call UFO. These sightings occurred in mist (relatively poor visibility of around a mile). There were a few bright stars and planets around, including Arcturus, Vega and Jupiter, as well as the Moon. It is possible that the mist reduced the visibility of celestial objects to a small number of bright stars and planets, which may then have been misidentified; with no other stars to provide guidance, these isolated stars could have been mistaken even by people familiar with the stars. Misty moonlight would have made this worse.

I've mistaken Arcturus myself on occasion- it is fairly isolated, and you have to be able to see the somewhat dimmer stars in the Plough to make a good identification.

Alternately the misty conditions may have caused the witnesses to misidentify distant planes as nearby drones. This seems to have happened several times, in the Colorado flap and the Gatwick flap. I'd like to see the results of the SNOOPIE team observations - when these 'drones' were first observed, special teams of observers on board these ships were deployed, equipped with commercially-available cameras, in order to record these events.

Of course these teams may have been unsuccessful in recording the 'drones' in detail, just as the various news reporters in Colorado and Gatwick were unsuccessful in capturing any drone footage. So I don't have a lot of hope for the evidence in this case.

 

[Jakin]

Hello eburacum,

I agree with you that many such sightings with stars, moon or planets can be misinterpreted.
My problem is that in an emergency, the arms could make the wrong conclusion and shoot at these objects. In today's world, when there are highly technical devices, can they actually be confused? Or are the people so badly trained that they don't recognize it? Do you have to worry about security?

Sorry for bad english.

Best regards
Jakin

 

[eburacum]

Misidentification in time of war has always been a problem. As I understand it, Col Custer was given the name 'Morning Star' because his troops once mistook Venus for a warning rocket. The period of the Second World War known as the Phony War was full of incidents of misidentification, mostly friendly aircraft mistaken for enemies.

Perhaps the most intriguing 'misidentification event' occurred during the so-called Battle of Los Angeles, when thousands of rounds of ammunition were expended against an enemy that almost certainly didn't exist. The famous image of an 'object' caught in the searchlights is not the only one taken in that battle, and most show nothing remarkable. The short, slightly wiggly lines in this image are star trails.

 

[feinman]

And the 50s ...

And the 40s ...

Exactly! This has all happened before. Which is why you never hear Elizondo or the others mention the 1940s or '50s.. They don't want to talk about it for a very good reason.

 

[feinman]

Misidentification in time of war has always been a problem. As I understand it, Col Custer was given the name 'Morning Star' because his troops once mistook Venus for a warning rocket. The period of the Second World War known as the Phony War was full of incidents of misidentification, mostly friendly aircraft mistaken for enemies.

Perhaps the most intriguing 'misidentification event' occurred during the so-called Battle of Los Angeles, when thousands of rounds of ammunition were expended against an enemy that almost certainly didn't exist. The famous image of an 'object' caught in the searchlights is not the only one taken in that battle, and most show nothing remarkable. The short, slightly wiggly lines in this image are star trails.
View attachment 37292

I think that was very possibly a real UFO event. A number of folks on the ground including the friend of a person I know who was there saw the objects. Did the military overreact? Yes. There are SO many stories of UFOs flying around coasts it really wouldn't be any surprise.

 

[feinman]

I am puzzled by the U.S Navy's repeated use of the words `drone` and `UAV` to describe the lights in the sky that were seen. The usual designation for such an even would be `U.F.O` - which is an official and neutral term in itself (despite any trappings it may have gathered). Or, if they wished to be more delicate about it they could have said UAP (Unidentified Ariel Phenomenon). But no...the report is all `Drone this` and `UAV that`.

The use of such language implies that the Navy personnel felt confident enough to identify what they were seeing (even though the report only speaks of lights in the sky). Deliberate obfuscation? Or is the term `drone` just a new catch all phrase to replace UFO?

Yes, as Eburacum has noted it means UFO in these contexts. They just don't want to mention "UFOs" or the 1940s or '50s, because someone would go to a newspaper archive and see that they are big obfuscators.
There was an old veteran of foreign wars manning a table by the Safeway. I got to talking with him. I said "The UFOs are back1" he just laughed and said "Yes".. I said "They never went away, did they?" He just laughed and said "no", and shook his head.. It was funny..

 

[EnolaGaia]

I am puzzled by the U.S Navy's repeated use of the words `drone` and `UAV` to describe the lights in the sky that were seen. ...
The use of such language implies that the Navy personnel felt confident enough to identify what they were seeing (even though the report only speaks of lights in the sky). ...

Maybe they were in fact confident that the objects seen were drones / UAVs - either by observational / sensor details not allowable for mention in the report(s) and / or background knowledge about the nature / agenda of the exercise(s) in which they were participating.

 

[feinman]

Maybe they were in fact confident that the objects seen were drones / UAVs - either by observational / sensor details not allowable for mention in the report(s) and / or background knowledge about the nature / agenda of the exercise(s) in which they were participating.

In the interview with Mick West, Elizondo is asked about the UAV / Drone designation, and Elizondo basically says that they are referring to them that way so as not to generate controversy.