DOW-UAP-PR067 Multiple Spherical UAP USO near Sub

[Mick West]

think we should always keep in the back of our minds, just like the hoax possibility with UFOs, some of these videos were seen and uploaded by UFO enthusiasts within government. Not necessarily those associated with the creation of and knowledge about the video.

I think some of them are even more mundane than that. There's been a new directive to report UAP. So people have been reporting them, even when they don't think there's anything special. I think Tim Phillips said that some pilots had reported balloons as UAP, even though they thought they were balloons.

And it might not even be the pilots. Perhaps some analyst down the line was looking at this sub and noticed the "UAP" flying around, and remembered the directive, and so they just simply got in the system without any real reason.

Of course, if they are UFO fans (like me) then that might make it even more likely they would report it.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Statistically it perfectly makes sense that since the new directives try to avoid stigma by pushing pilots and military to report literally anything unidentified for security reasons, then we would have a lot of cases like this, which could be super mundane, gets filmed, reported, catalogued as UAP and released.
No further info, no telemetry, just white dots.
So probably birds, of different kinds, and one floating?
Some "accelerations" seem a bit odd to me but then you have parallax, so go figure.
If this case was previously deemed by someone as weird or anomalous, then I would think it could be something else, until then, birds.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Also I see not evidence whatsoever of anything going in and out of water, we don't know who stated that, who thought of that and for what reason he/she did assume those objects were in fact going in and out of water.
Most probably they were not.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

I think some of them are even more mundane than that. There's been a new directive to report UAP. So people have been reporting them, even when they don't think there's anything special. I think Tim Phillips said that some pilots had reported balloons as UAP, even though they thought they were balloons.

And it might not even be the pilots. Perhaps some analyst down the line was looking at this sub and noticed the "UAP" flying around, and remembered the directive, and so they just simply got in the system without any real reason.

Of course, if they are UFO fans (like me) then that might make it even more likely they would report it.

If you look at the file descriptions for release 2 they all contains "A user uploaded this video to a classified network" with dates between late 2019 and mid 2024. It seems they were not reported to AARO. It even seems like the later ones weren't reported despite the directive to report being already in place.

 

[Ravi]

True, but we don't know that the actual operator that recorded this thought birds were UAPs. As seems to be the case in many of these releases, it's unclear who uploaded it and claimed it contained UAPs.

I think we should always keep in the back of our minds, just like the hoax possibility with UFOs, some of these videos were seen and uploaded by UFO enthusiasts within government. Not necessarily those associated with the creation of and knowledge about the video.

That is true, it could be footage taken out of context.

 

[Mick West]

If you look at the file descriptions for release 2 they all contains "A user uploaded this video to a classified network" with dates between late 2019 and mid 2024. It seems they were not reported to AARO. It even seems like the later ones weren't reported despite the directive to report being already in place.

I think the directives to report are specific to the AF or Navy (or other agencies), and don't mean the observer will report directly to AARO. The Navy in particular established new guidelines in 2019.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf

Limited data and inconsistency in reporting are key challenges to evaluating UAP. No standardized reporting mechanism existed until the Navy established one in March 2019. The Air Force subsequently adopted that mechanism in November 2020, but it remains limited to USG reporting.

Most of the PERSUE reports seem to be a result of these mechanisms (which predate AARO). Of course, the fact that we see them now means that they all were eventually looked at by AARO.

 

[JMartJr]

I think you misunderstand wave motion. Waves are water that's going up and down, not traveling forwards, and the apparent motion of a wave does not mean that the water itself is moving at that speed.

Indeed, here's a good explanation of how it works:

Source: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/F0YjCbEsVgQ


Essentially, waves move through the water, the water does not move along with the waves, other than moving in a small(ish) circle. (Breaking waves as on the shore are a different thing, to an extent, we've all seen the water rush up onto the beach... but then it runs back out to where it was! Currents are also a different matter, I doubt movement with the current would be noticeable here, but that could be explored if somebody wants to dive into it.)

 

[Nourali]

There is another odd sequence that needs a proper explanation.

Most of the other bright points in the video appear clearly above the water, with no real ambiguity. This one is different: it looks smaller, less distinct, and it partially fades into the wave texture, which creates the impression that it might be very close to the surface, or even interacting with the water.

I'm not claiming it actually enters the water. That could easily be a contrast/clutter illusion caused by the sensor, the waves, distance, blur, or compression. A small bird or object passing visually close to the waterline could fade in and out against the sea texture and create a false "in/out of water" impression (we have seen multiple exemple of that with others cases).

But that explanation creates a problem here. If the object looks small, faint, and visually mixed with the water texture, then it does not look like something close to the camera. It looks more like something near the water surface, and therefore probably farther away than some of the clearer points seen above the water. Yet it appears to move faster than the other similar objects in the video.

Parallax could explain a high apparent speed if the object were much closer to the camera. But in this case, the visual ambiguity points the other way: the object looks small and difficult to resolve, not like a nearby object crossing the frame. So the combination is awkward: it appears close to the water, or at least visually mixed with the water, while also showing a very high apparent speed compared with the other points.

What do you think ?