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

Latest Reports Of UFO Sightings

Jings! Crivens! Help Ma Boab!

I have, quite literally, just unearthed the interview I had reported all those years ago and determined to find - my responsibility for highlighting same in the first place.

Astonishing to see this again and still comfortable (!) I called it correctly at the time.

This is categorically an extraordinary admission by a US president and until resurfacing here, right now, could we safely surmise, with rare exceptions, never seen before in America.

"It would be interesting to get the facts straight from the man himself".

Give it 2 minutes, 26 seconds...


Another short video about the Carter story:

 
Perhaps of related interest?

Carrier Group In Recent UFO Encounters Had New Air Defense Tech Like Nimitz In 2004 Incident

These incidents came a decade after UFOs appeared near a carrier group conducting large scale drills with an earlier version of this same capability.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...efense-tech-just-like-nimitz-in-2004-incident
I'd suggest that this indicates that the same radar system is subject to the same rate of false detections.
 
The most recent explanation of Carter's sighting is that it was a barium cloud, deliberately released at that date and time.
https://badufos.blogspot.com/2017/01/jimmy-carters-ufo-sighting-was-it-venus.html
Thus this barium cloud at Eglin is consistent with Carter's reported 'UFO' as to time, elevation, AND direction. Furthermore, the appearance reported by Carter is totally consistent with a high altitude barium cloud. His report stated that it was 'bluish at first, then reddish, luminous not solid'. A neutral barium cloud would initially glow bluish or greenish, with parts of it taking on a reddish glow as some the barium becomes ionized in the high altitude sunlight. The size and brightness, reported as being about that of the moon, would also be consistent with a barium cloud at Eglin, as viewed from Leary, GA
 
I'd suggest that this indicates that the same radar system is subject to the same rate of false detections.
Balloons? Neat if very old idea, but that's not what happened:
"When they'd show up on radar', Voorhis says, 'I'd get the relative bearing and then run up to the bridge and look through a pair of heavily magnified binoculars in the direction the returns were coming from'.

The objects were too far away for Voorhis to get a good look, but he could still tell they were moving erratically.

'I couldn't make out details, but they'd just be hovering there, then all of a sudden, in an instant, they'd dart off to another direction and stop again', Voorhis says. 'At night, they'd give off a kind of a phosphorus glow and were a little easier to see than in the day'.

Around November 14, the objects had been tracked for about a week, Popular Mechanics reports. '

There were other visual sightings too, and I'm sure more people will come forward soon about the "balloons" :evillaugh:



What will you skeptics do when more and more comes out!? This just happened, with your "balloons" --golly, where do you think this is heading? to a show one day called "We Were Wrong About UFOs"? Nah, it's going the other direction:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ushes-for-unprecedented-public-report-on-ufos
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/27/politics/pentagon-ufo-videos/index.html
Wow!! So many deluded people.. Thank god there are a couple of geniuses to inform them they are all wrong and they can be told what they saw.. :)
 
Last edited:
So you were wrong about those videos just being a balloon and jet engine flare. That, or you know better than the scientists working for the DoD with direct access to the material, right? So, there were visuals of the objects --people looked at them through binoculars during radar detection --and this went on for days during the Fravor event. So, will you ever admit you were wrong? :yellowc:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/science/tom-delonge-ufo-research.html

"Susan Gough, the Pentagon spokeswoman who made the statement last week said that the Navy had “confirmed that the three videos that are in wide circulation are indeed recordings made by naval aviators, recorded during their training evolutions.”

She also said that the Navy “has always considered the phenomena observed in those videos as unidentified.” Not only that, but the sightings had been “part of a larger issue of an increased number of training range incursions by unidentified aerial phenomena in recent years,” she said."

So they are not ours. Could they be Chinese or Russian or Bolivian? No way. So then why:

Top-secret UFO files could 'gravely damage' US national security if released, Navy says

https://www.space.com/navy-confirms-secret-ufo-video.html

Does none of this make sense?!
 
Last edited:
What will you skeptics do when more and more comes out!? This just happened, with your "balloons" --golly, where do you think this is heading? ...
Wow!! So many deluded people.. Thank god there are a couple of geniuses to inform them they are all wrong and they can be told what they saw.. :)

Any further snarky comments like this will draw formal warnings. Cease the juvenile mockery ...
 
If Voorhis saw 'things moving erratically' through 'heavily magnified binoculars' they were probably birds. That's an old and recurrent phenomenon - someone gets a strange radar return, takes a look in the general direction and sees something barely visible there, and thinks it is confirmation. It really isn't.
 
The Fravor event is consistent with a balloon, perhaps released from San Clemente island, observed at Fravor at half the distance he thought it was. He circled around it, and became subject to a parallax event that seems reasonably similar to the parallax event in the clip known as GOFAST. Note that the GOFAST clip is pretty well conclusively explained now, as either a balloon or a large bird, obseved from a moving plane - or, to be completely open-minded, a small spaceship about the size of an albatross.
 
The trouble is, military investigations aren't always as rigorous as they might be.

1/The Mexican airforce investigated the Campeche footage, and were unable to explain it, but James C Smith, an independent investigator, discovered they were oil rig flares.
2/ The Chilean navy investigated the San Antonio helicopter footage, and were unable to explain it, but Mick West at Metabunk found out exactly what it was (a water dump from a civilisan airliner) and even found the responsible airline. That idiot Leslie Kean, who had previously touted this as evidence of official investigations proving the existence of unidentified craft, sooon changed her tune (but still refused to credit West).
3/ Mick West and his Metabunk collaborators have examined the GOFAST clip, and shown that the object in it is much smaller than Elizondo and his supposedly competent investigators had realised, bringing it into the size range of a small balloon or a large bird.
4/ Similarly they've examined the GIMBAL clip and found that the apparent rotation of the object and movement against the cloud background are artifacts of the internal rotation of the FLIR system, something that Elizondo and his supposedly competent investigators had failed to realise.

The fact of the matter is, these independent investigators seem to be doing much better than the military ones, so I think it would be a very good idea to open these investigations to independent investigators of this kind. During the investigation into the Challenger Shuttle explosion, it took and independent investigator (Richard Feynman) to cut through all the obfuscation and track-covering that went on at that time, and he found the cause in due course. I am certain that these observations have mundane causes (probably a series of unrelated causes that get linked together by no more than temporal proximity) and that a truly independent investigation could find them.
 
Last edited:
Note as well we still don't have any details about the provenance of the GOFAST or GIMBAL clips. The very fact that the GIMBAL clip is given that label seems significant to me, since the gimbal system on the FLIR was responsible for many of the strange phenomena observable in the clip. Did someone call it that because it was a good example of rotational flaring?
 
Here's a source that suggests Navy balloons may have been involved in some aspects of the sighting'
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/po...day-nimitz-tictac-ufos-radar-encounter.11273/
Kevin Day (a radar operator) said "the only thing I could think that it could possibly be were balloons ".
nearby San Clemente Island is a base for exercises including Stinger missiles and target balloons.

Why didn't the internal investigation reveal this? I think that the initial investigation wasn't particularly thorough, and the later investigation by TTSA was incompetent.
 
Has this been posted before? I think it's some natural (weather) phenomenon but I find it fascinating

I don't recall this photo being posted before.

The first thing I'd like to know is whether the photo was taken through a window. Some aspects of the color and contrast make me think the pic could have been snapped through tinted or polarized glass.

There are no hills or elevated terrain features visible from the Villa Bar & Grill location looking southward.

I've seen remarkably distinct and sky-spanning leading and trailing edges of thunderstorms in that very region (mid-Minnesota), where the flat terrain allows fronts to slide quite discretely across the landscape. This dark band resembles such storm edges, but I can't say I've ever seen one quite so linear / straight as the dark band in the photo.
 
I don't recall this photo being posted before.

The first thing I'd like to know is whether the photo was taken through a window. Some aspects of the color and contrast make me think the pic could have been snapped through tinted or polarized glass.

There are no hills or elevated terrain features visible from the Villa Bar & Grill location looking southward.

I've seen remarkably distinct and sky-spanning leading and trailing edges of thunderstorms in that very region (mid-Minnesota), where the flat terrain allows fronts to slide quite discretely across the landscape. This dark band resembles such storm edges, but I can't say I've ever seen one quite so linear / straight as the dark band in the photo.
Found this similar image/effect, on Google Street View...

Annotation 2020-07-09 150535.jpg
 
I don't recall this photo being posted before.

The first thing I'd like to know is whether the photo was taken through a window. Some aspects of the color and contrast make me think the pic could have been snapped through tinted or polarized glass.

There are no hills or elevated terrain features visible from the Villa Bar & Grill location looking southward.

I've seen remarkably distinct and sky-spanning leading and trailing edges of thunderstorms in that very region (mid-Minnesota), where the flat terrain allows fronts to slide quite discretely across the landscape. This dark band resembles such storm edges, but I can't say I've ever seen one quite so linear / straight as the dark band in the photo.
Probably photographed from inside the cafè.

Is it possible it's a fata morgana of a hill and a lake "hiding" behind the local fog?
 
Last edited:
I don't recall this photo being posted before.

The first thing I'd like to know is whether the photo was taken through a window. Some aspects of the color and contrast make me think the pic could have been snapped through tinted or polarized glass.

There are no hills or elevated terrain features visible from the Villa Bar & Grill location looking southward.

I've seen remarkably distinct and sky-spanning leading and trailing edges of thunderstorms in that very region (mid-Minnesota), where the flat terrain allows fronts to slide quite discretely across the landscape. This dark band resembles such storm edges, but I can't say I've ever seen one quite so linear / straight as the dark band in the photo.

It was actually taken through a window, or so the poster says. Tinted or polarized, I have no idea.
Lots of people who responded to the post confirmed that there are no hills nearby.
I agree it's either an exceptionally clear and straight thunderstorm in the distance, as you suggest, or a fata morgana, as @Vardoger says. I find it stunning anyway.
 
Is it possible it's a fata morgana of a hill and a lake "hiding" behind the local fog?

It appears to be too close (i.e., not as distant as the horizon) and too high in the sky to be a fata morgana.
 
The cloud appears dark, so it must be in shadow. That implies there is another cloud above it, between it and the Sun. I think I can see that, right at the top of the photo. Note that the dark cloud stretches right across the image, behind the foreground clouds. So it's not a reflection.

An unusual image, but unlikely to be a gigantic star destroyer floating above Minnesota with no-one else noticing.
lf8yurze29851.jpg
 
I wonder if this may have been a 'shelf cloud', a species of Arcus cloud that is associated with thunderstorms. Fairly sure they get thunderstorms in Minnesota. ...

Same here ... That's precisely the sort of dramatic cloud-edge structure I alluded to earlier, which I've personally witnessed in mid-Minnesota.
 
I've seen them very rarely in the UK, generally associated with severe weather events. Never seen a 'roll cloud', which is the other kind of arcus, sometimes seen in Australia where the gliders use them for skysurfing.
 
The cloud appears dark, so it must be in shadow. That implies there is another cloud above it, between it and the Sun. I think I can see that, right at the top of the photo. Note that the dark cloud stretches right across the image, behind the foreground clouds. So it's not a reflection.

An unusual image, but unlikely to be a gigantic star destroyer floating above Minnesota with no-one else noticing.
lf8yurze29851.jpg
Why is there a person in black standing in the middle of the road ?
 
The cloud appears dark, so it must be in shadow. That implies there is another cloud above it, between it and the Sun. I think I can see that, right at the top of the photo. Note that the dark cloud stretches right across the image, behind the foreground clouds. So it's not a reflection.

An unusual image, but unlikely to be a gigantic star destroyer floating above Minnesota with no-one else noticing.
lf8yurze29851.jpg
As an experiment - if you take away the valley cloud, this is what is left - it's seems more like a bank of cloud then?
Cafe Image.jpg
 
Back
Top