The Pentagon Finally Admits It Investigates UFOs

Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
17
Likes
17
Points
3
#32
Well...one look at the website seems to indicate money is involved here (brands are listed as well as media...scroll down to see this ) more than simply trying to 'get out the truth' on ufos. I'm not against making a living but this seems far beyond that....to the $tar$ indeed.
https://dpo.tothestarsacademy.com/
Hell money is always the big motivator ....No telling what History is paying them for "Unidentified...." I have seen the first two episodes and to be honest they are not hashing out anything new, same old shit just different talking heads...
 

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
1,962
Likes
1,312
Points
184
Location
Indiana
#33
Hell money is always the big motivator ....No telling what History is paying them for "Unidentified...." I have seen the first two episodes and to be honest they are not hashing out anything new, same old shit just different talking heads...
It seems that most of the ufo shows just recycle stuff....

btw...interesting avatar....reminds me of one used by the 'minimalist'.
;)
 

kamalktk

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
4,659
Likes
5,857
Points
209
#35

kamalktk

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
4,659
Likes
5,857
Points
209
#38

feinman

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
1,012
Likes
411
Points
89
#39
There is the logical error of assuming the hypothesis is true.
The hypothesized information (rates of speed etc) have not been proven to be true.

It would be like answering a question about "If Godzilla was real, what would countries do about it?" Providing an answer to this question does not mean Godzilla is real.
Perhaps he is talking about historic cases too; he seems to be equating the new objects with the old objects from the '40s. He might have access to other information too. I wouldn't be surprised if RAND and Mcdonnell Douglas know a LOT about UFOs.
 

Tempest63

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
508
Likes
1,096
Points
139
#40
The Pentagon has finally uttered the words it always avoided when discussing the possible existence of UFOs — “unidentified aerial phenomena” — and admits that it still investigates reports of them.
maximus otter
Surely it matters not whether it is a UFO or a UAP. Any self respecting government should investigate any claims of unidentified craft flying over their territory to find out if it is little green men from Mars, an advance phalanx of the Russian airforce, the Grizwalds trying to down a jumbo with a Drone, or the snotty little 10 year old from next door who has cracked the perpetual energy problem and is flying his own saucer shaped aircraft?
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
27,899
Likes
12,733
Points
284
#41
There's a very scathing critique of this story in Peter Brookesmith's column in the latest FT. He says the claims don't add up, and the footage is of training exercises. Looks like this will be another one of those "breakthroughs" that dissolve into in-fighting.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,274
Likes
1,226
Points
169
#42
Two of the clips might be training exercises, but the Nimitz clip is somewhat more interesting. One possibility is that the Nimitz events were caused by a training exercise happening near the Nimitz without their knowledge, but this seems a bit unlikely to me.
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
27,899
Likes
12,733
Points
284
#43
You mean... the Nimitz clip could be authentic, and not a hoax/misidentification? I know the word "authentic" throws up all sorts of possibilities.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,274
Likes
1,226
Points
169
#44
The FLIR1 (Nimitz) clip seems to show a fairly ordinary aircraft flying away from the camera at more than 10km distance. This might have been caused by an aircraft in a nearby training area; the Nimitz was training in a part of the ocean that was surrounded by other test ranges. Of course very little of this is consistent with Fravour's account, but we have to take that as a separate incident, since it occurred on an earlier flight.

Some of the test ranges in this area (shown in dark blue)
 
Last edited:

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
27,899
Likes
12,733
Points
284
#45
Interesting, thanks. But (predictably) it just adds a new layer of questions rather than clearing anything up (!).
 

feinman

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
1,012
Likes
411
Points
89
#47

feinman

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
1,012
Likes
411
Points
89
#48
Different UFO Shapes; Different Functions
The Tic Tacs aren't variations on cigar-shaped craft, they have been seen before through history; most recently in the '50s when two F-84s were sent to intercept a "translucent flying washtub" in an historical precedent for the recent F-18 attempted interceptions.

And the UFO on the far right? One of the kind I saw.



My take on the Woonsocket UFOs....
Harold Trudel's Photos (Woonsocket, Rhode Island; 1967)
Tic Tac UFOs can be seen in the one declassified Mainbrace photo, and the Ryman photo, too.
I wish they would declassify the other encounters the Navy regularly had. Elizondo and Justice are alwaus having to be careful about what they can say; that must get tedious and worrisome over time. The UFO on the right is one of the kind I saw, but I saw five in formation. I knew they were individual objects when they assumed the echelon formation; the folks in Roseburg thought they were all one craft, as I did initially.
 
Last edited:

feinman

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
1,012
Likes
411
Points
89
#51
And if the answer is no, can we sue them for misrepresentation?
I wish! Probe list. I'm sure he will get some nonsense answer as he doesn't need to know. He will probably be told they "don't know" or are" "gathering more information", swamp gas at high altitudes causing deluded pilots to notice reflections of weather balloons on cockpit canopies, Venus, birds with the sun glinting off of them... :) The usual suspects.
 

feinman

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
1,012
Likes
411
Points
89
#52
It's funny how the military (Navy) has been saying that they are taking UFO reports, but won't release the findings for security reasons; I thought they were of "no threat to security". Do we really think that Russia or China have developed such a technology? Why is it SO much like things folks have been describing for decades? Hmmmm...
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,274
Likes
1,226
Points
169
#53
The most likely answer to the question 'what security reasons?' is that some of these sightings display the shortcomings of remote sensing apparatus, like radar, FLIR and light amplification optics. If they released all the details they would be describing the strengths and weaknesses of the sensors used by planes and other defence systems.

And I am sure that I need not repeat that nothing Elizondo and his cronies have released so far is evidence of alien craft?
 

feinman

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
1,012
Likes
411
Points
89
#54
The most likely answer to the question 'what security reasons?' is that some of these sightings display the shortcomings of remote sensing apparatus, like radar, FLIR and light amplification optics. If they released all the details they would be describing the strengths and weaknesses of the sensors used by planes and other defence systems.
Sure, I think that's probably a lot of it.
And I am sure that I need not repeat that nothing Elizondo and his cronies have released so far is evidence of alien craft?
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.
 
Last edited:

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,274
Likes
1,226
Points
169
#56
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.
 

feinman

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
1,012
Likes
411
Points
89
#57
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.
 

feinman

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
1,012
Likes
411
Points
89
#58
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:

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,274
Likes
1,226
Points
169
#59
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.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,274
Likes
1,226
Points
169
#60
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.
 
Last edited:
Top