Explained: New Navy UFO Videos

Mauro

Active Member
Apropos this conversation, this document might be of interest:

https://www.3af.fr/global/gene/link.php?doc_id=4375&fg=1

It's a French Sigma 2 publication. One of the "conclusions" is:
Do known Laws explain everything? It seems that some cases are beyond known science
and may prompt research into extensions of known laws or lead to other discoveries,
confirming alternative theories, now qualified as speculative.

There's no doubt about this conclusion, it's even a truism, wikipedia lists a lot of 'unsolved problems in physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics etc. etc' (those page are well worth a read if you're interested).
But this does not mean that some discovery will ever allow us to overcome the basic physical limitations we know exist (indeed, future discoveries could just as well have the opposite effect and introduce new limitations to what we can possibly do). There's a long thread somewhere here on Metabunk where this has been discussed, 'UFO and the laws of physics' iirc.
 
Last edited:

DavidB66

Active Member
Just a quick heads-up for people interested in the FLIR1, Gofast, and Gimbal videos; the Nimitz TicTac incident; and Kevin Day's radar observations, among other things.

There is a new video from 5x5 News (Mike Turber) here:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3LBeb4dl3k


It's a long video (2 hours 12 mins), and I listened to most of it in the background while doing other things, but I noted the following points:

- numerous high-altitude weather balloons were released by US military and/or NASA in the relevant period and location. Balloons of this type had not usually been detectable by radar in the past, but the new system being used by Kevin Day was sensitive enough to detect them, and resulted in surprising observations. In some cases two balloons were confused as one, giving a false impression of unfeasible movement.

- Turber's analysis of Gimbal is much in line with Mick West's, and he claims, around 1h:11min, that Atflir experts agreed. Very useful if true.

- he is sure that the Gofast object was a balloon and thinks he knows the type

- he claims that two F18s operated by or on behalf of NASA were in the relevant area, and that these were responsible for the FLIR1 and/or Gimbal observations. (The explanation was a bit complicated and I think he may also have suggested the 'partner' to Chad Underwood's plane as a candidate.) There is some discussion about transponders, radar spoofing and/or blocking, and whether or not the pilots could fail to detect another US military plane.

- he is clear that the visual observation of the TicTac by Fravor and Dietrich had nothing to do with the FLIR1 video. He has a hypothesis about testing of balloons released from a submarine but admits this is speculative.

Apologies if any of the above is confused or wrong.

This is all very interesting and important if true, because Turber claims it is based on many contacts he has had with military and weapons system experts, including Raytheon. Since the sources are confidential they are unverifiable. However, some of the information (such as records of balloon releases) comes from replies to FOIA requests. He promises several further videos. I can't assess the credibility of the claims in so far as they depend on unknown sources. An obvious objection will be that if they are true, the explanations would have been known to the UAPTF, yet they claim that all but one of the cases investigated were unresolved. There is of course the exception of the 'large deflating balloon', and it would be amusing if this turned out to be the TicTac.
 
Last edited:

JarJar

Member
- numerous high-altitude weather balloons were released by US military and/or NASA in the relevant period and location. Balloons of this type had not usually been detectable by radar in the past, but the new system being used by Kevin Day was sensitive enough to detect them, and resulted in surprising observations. In some cases two balloons were confused as one, giving a false impression of unfeasible movement.
From the National Weather Service:
https://www.weather.gov/bmx/kidscorner_weatherballoons

More than 900 locations globally release weather balloons twice per day...that we know of. Seems the most likely candidate to me.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
However, some of the information (such as records of balloon releases) comes from replies to FOIA requests.
Has he posted any of this information? He told me once he had some big FOIA release, but it turned out they had just sent him the book "NASA’s The X-43A Flight Research Program: Lessons Learned on the Road to Mach 10: Reaching for Hypersonic Flight "

Which can be downloaded from:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070021686/downloads/20070021686.pdf
 

DavidB66

Active Member
Has he posted any of this information?
In the video he keeps saying there will be more details later. I don't recall that any new documents were shown in the video itself, but I was doing other things while listening and only looked at the screen when he seemed to be getting into detail on the 3 Navy videos. I would like to think it is genuine, but wouldn't bank on it.
 
Last edited:

Woolery

Active Member
Just a quick heads-up for people interested in the FLIR1, Gofast, and Gimbal videos; the Nimitz TicTac incident; and Kevin Day's radar observations, among other things.

There is a new video from 5x5 News (Mike Turber) here:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3LBeb4dl3k


It's a long video (2 hours 12 mins), and I listened to most of it in the background while doing other things, but I noted the following points:

- numerous high-altitude weather balloons were released by US military and/or NASA in the relevant period and location. Balloons of this type had not usually been detectable by radar in the past, but the new system being used by Kevin Day was sensitive enough to detect them, and resulted in surprising observations. In some cases two balloons were confused as one, giving a false impression of unfeasible movement.

- Turber's analysis of Gimbal is much in line with Mick West's, and he claims, around 1h:11min, that Atflir experts agreed. Very useful if true.

- he is sure that the Gofast object was a balloon and thinks he knows the type

- he claims that two F18s operated by or on behalf of NASA were in the relevant area, and that these were responsible for the FLIR1 and/or Gimbal observations. (The explanation was a bit complicated and I think he may also have suggested the 'partner' to Chad Underwood's plane as a candidate.) There is some discussion about transponders, radar spoofing and/or blocking, and whether or not the pilots could fail to detect another US military plane.

- he is clear that the visual observation of the TicTac by Fravor and Dietrich had nothing to do with the FLIR1 video. He has a hypothesis about testing of balloons released from a submarine but admits this is speculative.

Apologies if any of the above is confused or wrong.

This is all very interesting and important if true, because Turber claims it is based on many contacts he has had with military and weapons system experts, including Raytheon. Since the sources are confidential they are unverifiable. However, some of the information (such as records of balloon releases) comes from replies to FOIA requests. He promises several further videos. I can't assess the credibility of the claims in so far as they depend on unknown sources. An obvious objection will be that if they are true, the explanations would have been known to the UAPTF, yet they claim that all but one of the cases investigated were unresolved. There is of course the exception of the 'large deflating balloon', and it would be amusing if this turned out to be the TicTac.
I’m sure this has been covered here before, but Mike Turber claimed in 2019 on the conspiracy-theory-minded podcast “Hidden Truth with Jim Breslin” that he rode across the country at hypersonic speeds on a “Tic tac” and described its interior and operation at length. He later admitted he was lying and now claims he lied on air, multiple times, to conduct a ‘social experiment’:

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ChR7G_UrUig


Anyone who lies knowingly and publicly for hours at a time and then claims later to be offering new truths about low-information events should, in my opinion, be heavily scrutinized. I’m a little surprised he is cited from time to time on metabunk as a credible source.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
Anyone who lies knowingly and publicly for hours at a time and then claims later to be offering new truths about low-information events should, in my opinion, be heavily scrutinized. I’m a little surprised he is cited from time to time on metabunk as a credible source.
I agree that Mike Turber's claims need to be scrutinised and backed up with evidence. Not much supporting data has yet been revealed. On Twitter on 8 September he (in his Twitter account as @5X5_NEWS) did show an extract from what looks like a genuine letter from NASA in response to an FOIA request. This at least supports the claim that he made such requests, but it doesn't actually reveal the data provided.

I'm not sure when Turber has been cited on Metabunk as a credible source. Searching the site for 'Turber' I only found two previous results. One was a comment from Turber himself in a 'flat earth' thread, and the other was a post by me drawing attention to a video which shows a large plastic object, probably a children's play pool, apparently being blown by the wind high into the air and moving erratically for about a minute. I thought this might be relevant to a number of 'UAP' cases. In my post I mentioned Turber as a courtesy, because I had discovered the video thanks to a post by him on Twitter. But he did not claim to be the original source, and I did not treat him as such.

In my more recent post (#203 above) I said
I can't assess the credibility of the claims in so far as they depend on unknown sources.

I haven't looked into Mike Turber's history in any depth. He seems to be excusing his admitted 'lies' on a previous occasion as a hoax to test people's credulity. Even if this is true, it is a dangerous tactic, which is liable to backfire (as it evidently has!) It is bound to cast doubt on any subsequent claims. But I wouldn't go so far as to rule out all 'hoax' tactics, which may occasionally have a legitimate purpose. A celebrated example is the Sokal Affair, where a physicist submitted an article containing deliberate nonsense to a journal of 'postmodern cultural studies', which duly published it. The implications of the Affair, and some similar cases, are discussed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
 
Top