The Pentagon Finally Admits It Investigates UFOs

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,266
Likes
1,214
Points
169
#91
it's because the videos are ambiguous that they were released.
Nonsense. Elizondo is so bad at analysing these videos he thinks they show craft with unusual performance characteristics - they do not.

What about all of the other intercept footage over the decades?
Examples?

What about the rest of the Mainbrace photos?
If that one you posted is an example, it was spherical, not tic-tac shaped, and was possibly a balloon, according to Blue Book.

Why would the Navy have their hand forced by angry pilots about reporting UFOs?
Angry? Fravor is loving his moment in the spotlight.

Why has this gone on for decades?
There will always be UFOs.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,266
Likes
1,214
Points
169
#92
Concerning Operation Mainbrace; some of those sightings have very tenuous connections to a NATO exercise occurring off Norway.
http://www.nuforc.org/Mainbrace.html
The sighting at RAF Topcliffe, for instance, happened about ten miles north of my house; nowhere near Norway, except perhaps on an astronomical scale.
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
962
Likes
353
Points
69
#95
Exactly --they are never released.

If that one you posted is an example, it was spherical, not tic-tac shaped, and was possibly a balloon, according to Blue Book.
That's the only one of the pictures they ever released; look at the highlight; it's too long for it to be a round object. Not a chance the objects were balloons:
https://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-mainbrace.htm

Angry? Fravor is loving his moment in the spotlight.
Fravor wasn't the only one -just like back in the '40s and '50s. a lot of pilots were and are experiencing UFOs. That's why the Navy (military) was forced to address it, again (and again, and again):
https://www.navytimes.com/off-duty/...loping-guidelines-on-reporting-ufo-sightings/

There will always be UFOs.
Sure, but there will also be eventual acknowledgement of the non-human advanced technology in our skies and oceans, too.
 
Last edited:

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
962
Likes
353
Points
69
#96
Also, the Gimbal video doesn't look like a jet engine, as you posted before; it looks similar, but it's not the same, and there was no visual on the supposed jet. Remember, pilots have had eyes on "flattened tops" and other anomalous objects, recently, again, irregardless of the videos. Should ask: "Where are the other videos of the encounters?" "Why wouldn't the military warn civilians against flying drones in military zones?", "Why won't they release more details?" etc.
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
962
Likes
353
Points
69
#97
If that one you posted is an example, it was spherical, not tic-tac shaped, and was possibly a balloon, according to Blue Book.
That particular one was listed as spherical and silver, and:

"The Air Force project chief, Captain Ruppelt stated: “[The pictures] turned out to be excellent . . . . judging by the size of the object in each successive photo, one could see that is was moving rapidly." The possibility that a balloon had been launched from one of the ships was immediately checked out. No unit had launched a balloon. A poor print of one of the photographs appears in the Project Blue Book files, but with no analysis report."
 

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
1,944
Likes
1,285
Points
184
Location
Indiana
#98
Question for Feinman:
I apologize if this is the wrong place for this, and I'm not trying to trap you.... but what is your favorite ufo pic in the public domain that supports your believe it is a genuine extraterrestrial craft?
Also what other 'evidence' (trace/burn marks, debris, etc..) in the public domain do you find irrefutable that supports that idea that ufos are alien craft?
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
962
Likes
353
Points
69
#99
Question for Feinman:
I apologize if this is the wrong pace for this, and I'm not trying to trap you.... but what is your favorite ufo pic in the public domain that supports your believe it is a genuine extraterrestrial craft?
Also what other 'evidence' (trace/burn marks, debris, etc..) in the public domain do you find irrefutable that supports that idea that ufos are alien craft?
I think there are quite a few! I believe the McMinnville UFO photo is real. I believe the Trudel UFO photos are real, as are the Heflin photos. The Farmington photo is real, and the photo from Austria is probably real, Hart photo of Lubbock lights, Sherman police photo, and there are many others. Footage? Nellis, the stabilized Somerset video.. There are many personal experiences and the photos don't always do them justice; UFOs don't often photograph well. There are other good photos here (and hoaxes too):
https://www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures2.html

As far as debris, or physical evidence --there were the Tully saucer nests, various indentations at sites, the Delphos case left some physical material --most of the good materials are in the custody of the military and some is at Wright Patterson, Battelle, and Bigelow Aerospace.. I don't believe we can reverse engineer UFO materials.

No need to worry about trapping me! I have seen them close enough and in a context that puts me in a place where I am just waiting for the truth to come out.. It IS indeed coming out! Just very, very slowly..
 
Last edited:

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
1,944
Likes
1,285
Points
184
Location
Indiana
I think there are quite a few! I believe the McMinnville UFO photo is real. I believe the Trudel UFO photos are real, as are the Heflin photos. The Farmington photo is real, and the photo from Austria is probably real, Hart photo of Lubbock lights, Sherman police photo, and there are many others. Footage? Nellis, the stabilized Somerset video.. There are many personal experiences and the photos don't always do them justice; UFOs don't often photograph well. There are other good photos here (and hoaxes too):
https://www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures2.html

As far as debris, or physical evidence --there were the Tully saucer nests, various indentations at sites, the Delphos case left some physical material --most of the good materials are in the custody of the military and some is at Wright Patterson, Battelle, and Bigelow Aerospace.. I don't believe we can reverse engineer UFO materials.

No need to worry about trapping me! I have seen them close enough and in a context that puts me in a place where I am just waiting for the truth to come out.. It IS indeed coming out! Just very, very slowly..
I am of course familiar with most of those...had not see the Farmington pics before...very odd looking. There are some who believe the Heflin and McMinville pics are hoaxes...not sure on the Trudel pics..I couldn't find much info on that case, though they remind me of the Billy Meier case. The Sherman photo is so amorphous that it's difficult to say what it represents..imo. The only physical trace case I ever thought was interesting was the Delphi case....but imo it doesn't mean it was an alien craft...simply an unknown.
Again what is your single best case with irrefutable evidence..? Just one event that screams aliens to you..?
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
962
Likes
353
Points
69
I am of course familiar with most of those...had not see the Farmington pics before...very odd looking. There are some who believe the Heflin and McMinville pics are hoaxes...not sure on the Trudel pics..I couldn't find much info on that case, though they remind me of the Billy Meier case. The Sherman photo is so amorphous that it's difficult to say what it represents..imo. The only physical trace case I ever thought was interesting was the Delphi case....but imo it doesn't mean it was an alien craft...simply an unknown.
Again what is your single best case with irrefutable evidence..? Just one event that screams aliens to you..?
I think it's important to listen to witnesses more than pay attention to the photographs, though they generally reinforce witness testimony. The McMinnville UFO and Heflin photos have been analyzed and found to be real. Also the Cocoyoc Object --it's IN one of the Woonsocket saucers:
https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ls-photos-woonsocket-rhode-island-1967.65798/
Many UFOs LOOK like balloons; that doesn't mean that they are balloons --UFOs have even been seen approaching Mogul balloons! See the old articles.. Not all traces have to be something never seen before --they might be from UFOs but not extraordinary substances themselves.
 

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
1,944
Likes
1,285
Points
184
Location
Indiana
I think it's important to listen to witnesses more than pay attention to the photographs, though they generally reinforce witness testimony. The McMinnville UFO and Heflin photos have been analyzed and found to be real. Also the Cocoyoc Object --it's IN one of the Woonsocket saucers:
https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ls-photos-woonsocket-rhode-island-1967.65798/
Many UFOs LOOK like balloons; that doesn't mean that they are balloons --UFOs have even been seen approaching Mogul balloons! See the old articles.. Not all traces have to be something never seen before --they might be from UFOs but not extraordinary substances themselves.
Others have thought that the Heflin and McMinnville cases were hoaxes...so we have a conflict here; just because the photos are genuine does not mean they are genuine ufos/alien craft. But I really don't want to get into a s discussion of that aspect.
I still would like your single best case...or do you not have one that screams aliens to you?
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
962
Likes
353
Points
69
Others have thought that the Heflin and McMinnville cases were hoaxes...so we have a conflict here; just because the photos are genuine does not mean they are genuine ufos/alien craft. But I really don't want to get into a s discussion of that aspect.
I still would like your single best case...or do you not have one that screams aliens to you?
The problem is that there are way too many! I post mostly about the ones I find the most imoressive; many of those are in the newspaper articles section; they demonstrate certain characteristics, or reveal particular things about our "visitors". I very much like the Nellis footage: it's good, and illuminating. The Farmington case is good, because the obje ts showed up at the same time each day, filling the sky; the Nuremburg UFOs from 1561 are the same objects swinging back through again in Farmington in 1950. My experience is linked to the McMinnville UFO (photo), as I suppose you read, and to one later that year, and others too. Photographs will always be controvertible for skeptics, especially in this age of digital manipulation. Read the articles; a lot of people have had a good look at these things, and there is a pattern and similarity to the technology and behavior of the devices, and the downright mind-blowing nature of UFO experiences..

Again, it is from sheer exhaustion and years of posting that I don't go on and on about these things. I want to, often, but there is so much, my fingers will break off.
 
Last edited:

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,266
Likes
1,214
Points
169
The Cocoyoc sighting was obviously a balloon, albeit one of a somewhat unusual design.
The Nellis footage looks like a balloon too.
The Wanaque series of events was an on-going hoax, perpetrated deliberately using fire-balloons (home-made chinese lanterns).
The Portage police chase is obviously a misidentification. Police are terrible at this sort of thing.
We've discussed the Nuremburg UFOs of 1561 before; the illustrations accompanying the account are more-or-less identical to contemporary illustrations of circumsolar ice halo events, so I suspect that is what we are looking at.
The McMinnville UFO is a blatant hoax.
I don't believe the Farmington event even happened as described. Three days of UFOs, and one crappy photo? No chance.
 
Last edited:

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
13,003
Likes
14,954
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,266
Likes
1,214
Points
169
Here's the Farmington photo; no context, no way of relating the images to the horizon or known objects; I suspect this is a fake or mock-up, like the photos supposedly from the Washington 1952 flap.
 

Attachments

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
962
Likes
353
Points
69
That's right. Contemporary illustrations of ice halo phenomena look very similar to the Nurnberg illustration, although there seems to have been a certain amount of exaggeration going on in 1561;
I was actually referring to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1561_celestial_phenomenon_over_Nuremberg
Read about how the objects moved --rushing at each other, and compare with the Farmington objects' movements:

FARMINGTON:


https://www.thinkaboutitdocs.com/1950-the-farmington-ufo-armada/

https://www.koat.com/article/witness-recalls-1950-farmington-ufo-armada/5068732

"“They appeared to be coming at each other head-on,” he related. “At the last second, one would veer at right angles upward, the other at right angles downward. One saucer would pass another and immediately the one to the rear would zoom into the lead.”


"All these square-looking formations in the sky. They were made up of dots, and the dots would shift from one formation to another," he said. "The first day there were a few, the second day there were too many to count and the third day, there were maybe 30 or 40 of them left."

Riggs said they were high in the sky and people had to look hard to see them. He said one of the teachers cried, but that the children were not afraid as the objects in the sky did not present any threat."

1561:
"In the morning of April 14, 1561, at daybreak, between 4 and 5 a.m., a dreadful apparition occurred on the sun, and then this was seen in Nuremberg in the city, before the gates and in the country – by many men and women. At first there appeared in the middle of the sun two blood-red semi-circular arcs, just like the moon in its last quarter. And in the sun, above and below and on both sides, the color was blood, there stood a round ball of partly dull, partly black ferrous color. Likewise there stood on both sides and as a torus about the sun such blood-red ones and other balls in large number, about three in a line and four in a square, also some alone. In between these globes there were visible a few blood-red crosses, between which there were blood-red strips, becoming thicker to the rear and in the front malleable like the rods of reed-grass, which were intermingled, among them two big rods, one on the right, the other to the left, and within the small and big rods there were three, also four and more globes. These all started to fight among themselves, so that the globes, which were first in the sun, flew out to the ones standing on both sides, thereafter, the globes standing outside the sun, in the small and large rods, flew into the sun. Besides the globes flew back and forth among themselves and fought vehemently with each other for over an hour. "



 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
962
Likes
353
Points
69
Here's the Farmington photo; no context, no way of relating the images to the horizon or known objects; I suspect this is a fake or mock-up, like the photos supposedly from the Washington 1952 flap.
There is no proof of a hoax. It would be an amazing one if it was, and certainly not what you'd expect from a hoax. This photo was apparently sent to a Scottish boys' magazine, with the note on the back "Farmington #29" --there could have been other photos now lost or confiscated, and this was the one that survived, as it was sent to Scotland at the time the others went missing. Looks real to me. It even very much matches Zigel's description of some UFOs:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?...RFNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IkgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7098,4541412
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,266
Likes
1,214
Points
169
Riggs said they were high in the sky and people had to look hard to see them. He said one of the teachers cried, but that the children were not afraid as the objects in the sky did not present any threat."
This is the most important factor in the Farmington account; they could barely be seen. This is not consistent at all with the photo, which shows huge, nearby objects and is almost certainly a fake.
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
962
Likes
353
Points
69
This is the most important factor in the Farmington account; they could barely be seen. This is not consistent at all with the photo, which shows huge, nearby objects and is almost certainly a fake.
There is no evidence of a fake, period. The only thing that can be said is that it is of unknown provenance. The objects appeared for several days --perhaps some were closer to the ground at some point. That's why I said photos will always be controvertible for skeptics, and I don't often reference them :cool:
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
962
Likes
353
Points
69
This is the most important factor in the Farmington account; they could barely be seen. This is not consistent at all with the photo, which shows huge, nearby objects and is almost certainly a fake.
The smaller probes are the right size, the larger objects look to contain those.
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
962
Likes
353
Points
69
So was I. The Nurnberg event seems to have been celestial phenomena, possibly described and depicted by someone who only had a second hand account.
It doesn't sound like a celestial phenomenon to me; nothing since has behaved that way. Remember, some of the smaller objects grew hot and eventually burned on the ground --as if old or damaged von Neumann probes were being discarded.
 
Top