Explained: The Navy UFO Videos

Mick West

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus


Today (April 27, 2020) the Navy officially released three videos of UFOs. They are called FLIR, GIMBAL and GOFAST. The internet immediately took this as meaning that aliens are real. But the videos are not actually new. They were internally declassified back in 2017, and immediately released by Tom DeLonge's To The Stars Academy. I started writing about them in December 2017. With the help of others, I quickly arrived at likely explanations (but not precise identifications) for all three videos.

The FLIR video is most likely a distant plane. The video was taken well after the famous encounter with a hypersonic zig-zagging tic-tac by pilots from the NIMITZ. This object doesn't actually move on screen - except when the camera moves, and it resembles an out of focus low-resolution backlit plane. I don't know what the pilots saw, but this video does not show anything really interesting.

The GIMBAL video is also probably of a plane. .... It's not rotating. What you see is the infrared glare of the engines, larger than the plane. It looks like it is rotating because of an artifact of the gimbal-mounted camera system. This is all a bit confusing, so I made several videos explaining it. Oh, and the "AURA" around the plane, that's just image sharpening. It happens all the time in thermal camera footage. It's not an alien warp drive, it's just the unsharp mask filter.

The GO-FAST video probably shows a balloon. It's not moving fast, it's not skimming the water, and you can verify this yourself because all the information you need is in the numbers on screen. It's just an effect caused by parallax. Over the last few years, I've made a variety of videos explaining all this.

You can find the playlist here: Source: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-4ZqTjKmhn5Qr0tCHkCVnqTx_c0P3O2t


If you've got questions (especially about the GIMBAL video) then I probably covered it there, or it would be covered in the various discussion on Metabunk. If it's not covered, then let me know (mick@mickwest.com), and I'll try to find an answer.

All I'm explaining here are these three videos, not other videos. And I'm not explaining any eyewitness accounts. These three videos are not as interesting as they seem and they have quite plausible explanations. The Navy probably arrived at similar conclusions - that these are simply unidentified aircraft, drones, or balloons - but because of the default operational secrecy regulations nobody can talk about it. And that opened the door to all this speculation. Hopefully, I've cleared it up a little. Visiting aliens are always a possible explanation for any UFO video, but these videos don't show evidence of any kind of advanced technology - so, unfortunately, the real explanations, while fun to investigate, are probably pretty boring.

Metabunk Discussions:

The main discussion thread for each of the three videos is in bold at the top of each list.

FLIR/Nimitz/Tic-Tac Video
GIMBAL Video
GOFAST Video
Navy Videos in General
EXTERNAL RESOURCES:
 

Attachments

  • maxresdefault.jpg
    maxresdefault.jpg
    98.8 KB · Views: 310
Last edited:
Great work as always Mick, are you going to do another short one about the Go Fast video I know you did a Go Fast one a while ago but it as a bit longer than these.
 
Hey Mick great analysis.

A couple of questions:
- in the FLIR video from Nimitz the radar does not lock onto the target and the range cannot be estimated. If this is an aircraft how do you explain this? F-18s have Beyond-Visual-Range radar capabilities. Especially if this is some kind of airliner as you propose it should be detected by radar easily (or not?). It should be noted the squadron had new radars/instrumentation: was this a spectacularly coincidental glitch with this new system?
- in the Gimbal video the pilots say "there is a whole fleet of them, look on ASA". What would account for such a formation of aircraft not being accurately identified by a NAVY fighter squadron? Wouldn't the ship radars etc. also detect them if they were within IR detection range?

Thanks and keep up the good work!
 
Thanks so much for sharing and putting in the work to actually try and see what is going on. ;)✔️

Rather than what these so called experts do when they say things like "it looks f ast" and when asked just how fast is it travelling, they answer: "Real fast". o_O It just goes to show that their investigations are nothing more than subjective impressions and opinion. There are no calculations based on any data.
 
Beyond visual range is a term usually referring to a missile weapons system where the weapons system has the capability to engage at ranges outside of the visual range of the pilot and the active tracking systems onboard the aircraft. The missile can often be launched towards a potential target and then engage later when a lock can be acquired by the missile itself, often the missile relays data back to the plane acting as an extension of the planes sensor capabilities.

The wikipedia article is a bit badly sourced and I can't find any citation for it's claim of "20 nmi (37 km) or beyond," but generally it seems to refer to a missile system that has the capability to engage far from the plane and it's sensor range by having a long range range rocket motor and independent tracking system. The wikipedia article actually mentions the ability to engage beyond the IFF (identify, friend or foe) range is a problem with BVR systems, Ie you can engage and try to shoot things down but you might not actually know what they are (friend or foe.) In a wartime situation you can use other intelligence to assume they are enemy aircraft.

The article mentions "These types of missiles have the advantage of not requiring the launching aircraft to illuminate the target with radar energy for the entire flight of the missile, and in fact do not require a radar lock to launch at all, only target tracking information" but this is not sourced.

So BVR capability of a weapons system would seem doesn't always mean you know exactly what you are shooting at.
 
Mick West said:
What does that mean exactly? We can see the sun, and that's 93 million miles away. What is the actual range?
Click to expand...

That's the million dollar question. That data is not public. The Navy has it obviously. However some data points:
I believe radar should have a longer range in all conditions but I'm not an expert in this.

Mick West said:
Most likely not being a formation of aircraft.
Click to expand...
So:
  • The pilots were in error?
  • The pilots were lying?
  • Instrument malfunction?
  • Other?
Cheers! Great work by all

P.s. I think your analogy to the Chilean case is interesting but invalid. A chopper is not comparable to a multirole fighter. The whole point of a Navy Carrier Strike Group is to maintain total control over a specific airspace at extreme ranges (they must protect against incoming threats such as anti-ship missiles that may be hypersonic). Multiple detection systems overlap and are integrated. If they are filming balloons and airliners (!!!) by mistake that would be an extremely improbable scenario and would indicate complete incompetence/failure of several detection systems at the same time. The odds of this happening once are very low (not zero). The odds of this happening multiple times (the pilots reported this as a daily occurrence in the Roosevelt case) are infinitesimal. Unless this is all some kind of elaborate misinformation campaign by the Navy...... they have all the data to research this after all and they still say this is unexplained.
 
Last edited:
gtoffo said:
That's the million dollar question. That data is not public. The Navy has it obviously. However some data points:
I believe radar should have a longer range in all conditions but I'm not an expert in this.


So:
  • The pilots were in error?
  • The pilots were lying?
  • Instrument malfunction?
  • Other?
Cheers! Great work by all

P.s. I think your analogy to the Chilean case is interesting but invalid. A chopper is not comparable to a multirole fighter. The whole point of a Navy Carrier Strike Group is to maintain total control over a specific airspace at extreme ranges (they must protect against incoming threats such as anti-ship missiles that may be hypersonic). Multiple detection systems overlap and are integrated. If they are filming balloons and airliners (!!!) by mistake that would be an extremely improbable scenario and would indicate complete incompetence/failure of several detection systems at the same time. The odds of this happening once are very low (not zero). The odds of this happening multiple times (the pilots reported this as a daily occurrence in the Roosevelt case) are infinitesimal. Unless this is all some kind of elaborate misinformation campaign by the Navy...... they have all the data to research this after all and they still say this is unexplained.
Click to expand...

You have to understand that there are a few separate and conflated events and videos in this topic and they are subject to crosstalk and mixed up in people's minds so much it's a perfect storm of crossed wires.

There are 3 videos and there's also some witness statements not all the videos and witness statements are related (Fravor was flying in non of the 3 videos) but people seems to link them and take one video explanation when discussing the events that are part of the eyewitness account and other combinations of the factors.

If the videos were released alone with no statements then they would be as explainable as Mick has done, if the statements were released alone they would be just things people say they saw with no way to accept/dismiss them, that there are some videos and some statements and they all appear to have been linked in some way by some people (TTSA etc) is the real problem.

For instance the only object in the videos thought likely by skeptics be a be a balloon is the one in "go-fast" yet people say "how can you think they thought it was a balloon" when they are talking about a different video or one of the eye witness statements, the answer is we don't think they were all balloons, that balloon hypothesis is linked directly to the "go fast" video alone based on the evidence in that video alone.
 
jarlrmai said:
You have to understand that there are a few separate and conflated events and videos in this topic and they are subject to crosstalk and mixed up in people's minds so much it's a perfect storm of crossed wires.
Click to expand...

I agree that most people are not familiar with the evidence and mix up the events. My questions however are very specific and all the statements I've made refer to the correct event. (e.g. Chad underwood's statement is directly linked to FLIR). Or do you see some specific error I've made?

I think the questions I present are pretty reasonable doubts for the "those are all just distant planes" explanation.

GO fast could be a balloon. Although radar was picking it up. Wouldn't they be able to go and check it out if it was a stationary object? It seems is if it was such a common occurrence that they couldn't be bothered to go and look. This might have led to filming a normal object among all the weird stuff. The testimony from Roosevelt pilots supports this.
 
Agent K said:
Yes, one of those things. Fravor said the radar tape showed jamming. I discussed it in these posts
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/simulating-the-nimitz-ufo-video-as-a-blurry-plane.10794/post-232061
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/simulating-the-nimitz-ufo-video-as-a-blurry-plane.10794/post-232140
Click to expand...

Not exactly. I assume this is Chad Underwood (source page 9 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TIC_TAC_UFO_EXECUTIVE_REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf):
The radar was in a standard search mode (RWS/ 80NM/ 4bar/ intr) and the FLIR was in L+S slave (the FLIR would point in direction of a radar L+S track). There was no radio or communication interference and they had entry into the Link-16 network, Initial awareness of an object came via the radar. According to the radar display, the initial tracks were at approximately 30-40 nm to the south of the aircraft. Lt._________was controlling the radar and FLIR and attempted multiple times to transition the radar to Single Target Track (STT) mode on the object. The radar could not take a lock, the b-sweep would raster around the hit, build an initial aspect vector (which never stabilized) and then would drop and continue normal RWS b-sweep. When asked, LT.__________ stated that there were no jamming cues (strobe, champagne bubbles, "any normal EA indications"). It "just appeared as if the radar couldn't hack it." The radar couldn't receive enough information to create a single target track file. The FLIR, in L+S slave, pointed in direction of the initial track flies as the radar attempted lock. The FLIR showed an object at 0 ATA and approximately -5deg elevation (Figure 2). According to LT.__________ "the target was best guess co- altitude or a few thousand feet below," estimating the object to be between 15-20 thousand feet. The object, according to the FLIR, appeared stationary (Figure 3). There was no discernable movement from the object with the only closure being a result of the aircraft's movement. As LT.__________ watched the object it began to move out of FLIR field of view to the left. LT.__________ made no attempt to slew the FUR and subsequently lost situational awareness to the object. The Flight continued with training mission with no further contact with object."
Click to expand...

So the radar tape probably shows the radar going crazy trying to lock on this. But not conventional jamming. This is what Fravor has apparently seen.

So I guess they are assuming they were being jammed (actively or passively) as the radar was being rendered ineffective somehow (which is not normal).

I reccomend this interview with Chad Underwood: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/201...o-q-and-a-with-navy-pilot-chad-underwood.html It provides another data point on range:
I was more concentrated on looking at the FLIR (Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) is an optical electric- and thermal-imaging system that was developed for U.S. Navy pilots by Raytheon in the late 1990s, mainly for the detection and identification of tactical targets and the delivery of autonomous precision targeting to smart weapons. In the mid-2000s, as well as today, ATFLIR was capable of detecting and tracking targets within a range of 40 nautical miles.) It was inside of 20 miles. You're not going to see it with your own eyes until probably 10 miles, and then you're not going to be able to visually track it until you're probably inside of five miles, which is where Dave Fravor said that he saw it. So, at that point I didn't see anything with my eyeballs.

And it was doing that during your engagement too?
Yes. That was the thing that was the most interesting to me: how erratic this thing was
Click to expand...

This video shows a small portion of the encounter apparently. And is not representative of the complete behaviour of the phenomena. Also ATFLIR range is confirmed at 40nm with naked eye at <10nm.

Radar tape gives the range at 30-40 miles in the report and chad said 20 miles (even closer). No way radar doesn't detect this at such a range. Either a gross malfunction of the onboard radar (quite a coincidence) or something fishy is going on here. Also, not sure if Princeton was also tracking this with the SPY radar that made the initial detections at this time. Those radar tracks are apparently not available anymore and some witnesses say they were wiped (source: the nimitz encounters interviews).

I wouldn't be too quick saying this is "explained". We still have many questions to answer.
 
Last edited:
gtoffo said:
Not exactly. I assume this is Chad Underwood (source page 9 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TIC_TAC_UFO_EXECUTIVE_REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf):

So the radar tape probably shows the radar going crazy trying to lock on this. But not conventional jamming. This is what Fravor has apparently seen.

So I guess they are assuming they were being jammed (actively or passively) as the radar was being rendered ineffective somehow (which is not normal).

I reccomend this interview with Chad Underwood: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/201...o-q-and-a-with-navy-pilot-chad-underwood.html It provides another data point on range:


This video shows a small portion of the encounter apparently. And is not representative of the complete behaviour of the phenomena. Also ATFLIR range is confirmed at 40nm with naked eye at <10nm.

Radar tape gives the range at 30-40 miles in the report and chad said 20 miles (even closer). No way radar doesn't detect this at such a range. Either a gross malfunction of the onboard radar (quite a coincidence) or something fishy is going on here. Also, not sure if Princeton was also tracking this with the SPY radar that made the initial detections at this time. Those radar tracks are apparently not available anymore and some witnesses say they were wiped (source: the nimitz encounters interviews).
Click to expand...

So you see how the different accounts contradict each other. As you highlighted in the Executive Report, "Initial awareness of an object came via the radar," so the radar did detect it but couldn't track it for some reason. Fravor was confident that it was jammed
External Quote:
What happens when the radar starts picking up indications that it's being jammed... It says "I'm being jammed," and it gives us indications in the cockpit, it'll put big strobes up and does all kinds of things, and it's pretty obvious when it happens.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/simulating-the-nimitz-ufo-video-as-a-blurry-plane.10794/post-232061
Or it was a malfunction. That's one purpose of military exercises, to detect malfunctions.
 
There is a serious flaw in the Gimbal analysis (rotation) that makes the analysis biased. In the video, we can see the clouds (cold/white) easily, that is, the infrared camera would have no difficulty showing the rest of the plane (cold/white) around its engines (hot/black).
 
jmmrios said:
There is a serious flaw in the Gimbal analysis (rotation) that makes the analysis biased. In the video, we can see the clouds (cold/white) easily, that is, the infrared camera would have no difficulty showing the rest of the plane (cold/white) around its engines (hot/black).
Click to expand...
No, the glare obscures the plane. Glare from an engine can get very large, even when there are clouds. The presence of contrast in the clouds shows the exposure is down in that cold level, which is why the glare is so large.

Here is an older example of engine glares in IR. Note the images of the planes, to scale.

Fig 2 - Object size matches timestamped positions.jpg
 
Agent K said:
So you see how the different accounts contradict each other. As you highlighted in the Executive Report, "Initial awareness of an object came via the radar," so the radar did detect it but couldn't track it for some reason. Fravor was confident that it was jammed
External Quote:
What happens when the radar starts picking up indications that it's being jammed... It says "I'm being jammed," and it gives us indications in the cockpit, it'll put big strobes up and does all kinds of things, and it's pretty obvious when it happens.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/simulating-the-nimitz-ufo-video-as-a-blurry-plane.10794/post-232061
Or it was a malfunction. That's one purpose of military exercises, to detect malfunctions.
Click to expand...

Nope no contradiction at all. The radar had a faint track but couldn't lock on. That faint track was how they identified the object. Fravor saw the radar tape and thinks it couldn't lock on due to jamming. Chad Underwood has stated the it didn't appear to be regular jamming as there were no usual cues but he confirmed that the radar was unable to "hack it" and that's why he switched to the ATFLIR and the video starts.

Malfunction is definitely not out of the picture but would be a pretty spectacular coincidence.

Also: wouldn't the pilot know of an investigation on his radar system that revealed a malfunction? They don't say there was any. Their systems fail spectacularly at tracking an airliner and nobody says anything? That's beyond belief.

Mick West said:
No, the glare obscures the plane. Glare from an engine can get very large, even when there are clouds. The presence of contrast in the clouds shows the exposure is down in that cold level, which is why the glare is so large.

Here is an older example of engine glares in IR. Note the images of the planes, to scale.
Click to expand...

Hey Mick, that previous example isn't actually "glare". Isn't it just the heat signature of the engine plume seen directly from the back?
 
Last edited:
gtoffo said:
Also: wouldn't the pilot know of an investigation on his radar system that revealed a malfunction? They don't say there was any. Their systems fail spectacularly at tracking an airliner and nobody says anything? That's beyond belief.
Click to expand...
That information would likely be classified.

gtoffo said:
Hey Mick, that previous example isn't actually "glare". Isn't it just the heat signature of the engine plume seen directly from the back?
Click to expand...
No. It's glare. Like glare around a flashlight pointing at a camera.

"Heat signature" (aka "Infrared signature") is a bit meaningless here. It's an infrared image. The heat signature of an engine plume is just the infrared image of an engine plume. It's not bigger than the entire plane - unless there's glare. If they reduced the exposure of the camera, you'd see the cone of the exhaust as a small black region, but then you would not see anything else.

Kind of like this - but even here there's a bit of glare obscuring the actual shape of the exhaust in the rear view.
Metabunk 2020-05-09 13-44-05.jpg
 
gtoffo said:
Nope no contradiction at all. The radar had a faint track but couldn't lock on. That faint track was how they identified the object. Fravor saw the radar tape and thinks it couldn't lock on due to jamming. Chad Underwood has stated the it didn't appear to be regular jamming as there were no usual cues but he confirmed that the radar was unable to "hack it" and that's why he switched to the ATFLIR and the video starts.

Malfunction is definitely not out of the picture but would be a pretty spectacular coincidence.

Also: wouldn't the pilot know of an investigation on his radar system that revealed a malfunction? They don't say there was any. Their systems fail spectacularly at tracking an airliner and nobody says anything? That's beyond belief.
Click to expand...

There are a number of contradictions. Fravor suggested that there were indications of jamming like big strobes, while the Executive Report said there weren't. As you pointed out, "Radar tape gives the range at 30-40 miles in the report and chad said 20 miles (even closer)." In other interviews, Fravor said the minute-long FLIR video is all there is, while Gary Voorhis told Mick that he saw more video of the target being reacquired after if left the screen. I commented on that here
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/tftrh-36-gary-voorhis-tic-tac-ufo-witness.11080/#post-236235

Coincidental malfunctions follow Murphy's law.

The target in question wasn't necessarily an airliner like the Chilean Navy "UFO."
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ex...deo-aerodynamic-contrails-flight-ib6830.8306/
 
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/tftrh-36-gary-voorhis-tic-tac-ufo-witness.11080/#post-236235

Another range data point from Voohris' interview: "we can see 256 nm around each ship. That's the horizon" and we can see "everything".

That's a lot.

From Chad Underwoods's interview on NYMAG: "
That day, Dave Fravor was landing at the same time I was getting my gear on, and we crossed paths just after he'd seen it. I really don't want to get into what Dave saw, specifically because I didn't see it with my own eyeballs. But I told him, "The Princeton" — again, which has got a really good sophisticated radar — "is reporting that there's an object out there that they wanted us to see if we could find and, if we're able, track."

So, we go out to where our designated training area is. We're not necessarily looking for something, but the Princeton had a specific object that they wanted us to hunt, for lack of a better word. And all of a sudden, I got this blip on my radar.
"

So they got directed by the Princeton's radar like Fravor. They were in range (within 256 nm) of the Princeton. So we have confirmation by the onboard radar, Princeton, and the ATFLIR.

If this was ANY kind of aircraft it would have been clear as day on those multiple systems. And multiple failures would have been necessary.

Agent K said:
There are a number of contradictions. Fravor suggested that there were indications of jamming like big strobes, while the Executive Report said there weren't.
Click to expand...

Once again: the quote says "no normal EA indications". Not that no jamming was happening. The radar was not working (which is not normal) so Fravor's description is not a "contradiction". The radar screen was showing inconsistent results which are indicative of jamming (although not the "normal" kind).
 
More data on radar ranges. The E-2 Hawkeye AAWACS plane (in the air that day) is equipped with a powerful APS-145 radar.

That aircraft has a range of 350 nm for large targets and 145 nm for something like a cruise missile. I suppose it's higher than the SPY 1-B (although it is much less powerful 1MW vs 6MW ) as being at high altitude the curvature of the earth is less of a constraint. Source: https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=1236

We know this radar had problems tracking the object with only faint returns. It may be due to some other radar characteristic such as low scan rate (5 rpm).

I think those data points exclude the aircraft explanation for most of those reports or any other other physical object that would return a clear radar return (balloons may not have a radar return).
 
gtoffo said:
So they got directed by the Princeton's radar like Fravor. They were in range (within 256 nm) of the Princeton. So we have confirmation by the onboard radar, Princeton, and the ATFLIR.
Click to expand...
Been a long time since I read the original threads, but 15 year old memories can't really be trusted. Especially when the statement contradicts itself.
 
Dear Mick, a guy asked me recently where he could find links to technical data from the manufacturer of those FLIR systems, specifically concerning DEROTATE Systems. He had already taken some research about the rotating PRISM focused on establishing a stable image, but found no data about the DEROTATE system at all. Could you kindly reply? Thanks a lot.
 
jmmrios said:
Dear Mick, a guy asked me recently where he could find links to technical data from the manufacturer of those FLIR systems, specifically concerning DEROTATE Systems. He had already taken some research about the rotating PRISM focused on establishing a stable image, but found no data about the DEROTATE system at all. Could you kindly reply? Thanks a lot.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the same thing?
 
jmmrios said:
Dear Mick, a guy asked me recently where he could find links to technical data from the manufacturer of those FLIR systems, specifically concerning DEROTATE Systems. He had already taken some research about the rotating PRISM focused on establishing a stable image, but found no data about the DEROTATE system at all. Could you kindly reply? Thanks a lot.
Click to expand...

does this thread answer your questions?
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/gimbal-lock-and-derotation-in-flir-atflir-systems.10792/
 
Well this just happened. Looks like Pilots reported Drones and Balloons leading up to the Gimble event on the east coast

Even quadcopter drone fleets that were hovering at altitude

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ts-from-navy-pilots-flying-off-the-east-coast

I guess this explains why Elizondo's video request form asked for Drone and Balloon footage. Probably because the Gimbal event was also Drones and Balloons. It's funny how everyone said we must listen to the flight crews, but when it's pointed out the WSO in the Gimbal video says the object is a drone, they change their tune

1589370210350.png
 
Last edited:
jackfrostvc said:
Well this just happened. Looks like Pilots reported Drones and Balloons leading up to the Gimble event on the east coast

Even quadcopter drone fleets that were hovering at altitude
Click to expand...

The plot thickens... fascinating. What the hell is going on here?

The first report clearly states "aircraft" and "wing span". The others are not so clear in their descriptions.

This is extremely fishy. Is this a black project by a US armed branch? Seems unlikely here or they would't be investigating themselves so much. Is it an adversary conducting espionage or amateurs (drug smugglers?)? Seems more probable.

Those are the reports from VFA-11 that Lt. Graves has talked about in the past. They are directly related to the "Gimbal" video.

One of the reports is the famed "near mid-air collision with balloon like object.": #7, Apr. 27, 2014: F/A-18F Super Hornet, Strike Fighter Squadron 11

Wow...
 
gtoffo said:
The plot thickens... fascinating. What the hell is going on here?

The first report clearly states "aircraft" and "wing span". The others are not so clear in their descriptions.

This is extremely fishy. Is this a black project by a US armed branch? Seems unlikely here or they would't be investigating themselves so much. Is it an adversary conducting espionage or amateurs (drug smugglers?)? Seems more probable.
Click to expand...


My money has always been on a secretive Electronic Warfare test, ie as described in these articles. It explains a lot, the weird radar signals, the drones, the balloons shaped like cubes in spheres, the sub, the secret nature where people were kept in the dark etc

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...e-capability-will-change-naval-combat-forever

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...rfare-pioneer-weigh-in-on-navy-ufo-encounters
 
jackfrostvc said:
My money has always been on a secretive Electronic Warfare test, ie as described in these articles. It explains a lot, the weird radar signals, the drones, the balloons shaped like cubes in spheres, the sub etc

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...e-capability-will-change-naval-combat-forever

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...rfare-pioneer-weigh-in-on-navy-ufo-encounters
Click to expand...

Except probably NOT by the US armed forces? Or at least not the NAVY. Cross branch miscommunication? The reports have been released by the DoD however in a unified manner. Why would they attract attention to a classified program? It makes no sense at all.

This is all really really strange.

Is the release of the videos a "message" to adversaries that they know what's going on?Are they saying they are unidentified so as not to reveal that they are being duped by someone?

Just... wow...
 
gtoffo said:
Except probably NOT by the US armed forces? Or at least not the NAVY. Cross branch miscommunication? The reports have been released by the DoD however in a unified manner. Why would they attract attention to a classified program? It makes no sense at all.

This is all really really strange.

Is the release of the videos a "message" to adversaries that they know what's going on?Are they saying they are unidentified so as not to reveal that they are being duped by someone?

Just... wow...
Click to expand...

IMO, this an internal test of their secretive EW program.

Look at the reports , one of them said they saw a Naval ship that went unidentified. Which they noted was strange
 
jackfrostvc said:
IMO, this an internal test of their secretive EW program.

Look at the reports , one of them said they saw a Naval ship that went unidentified. Which they noted was strange
Click to expand...

Strange? That's insane not strange. Why would the DoD release the videos and publicise this if it was an internal test of any kind by any branch under the control of the DoD? Makes no sense at all.

Are we saying there is a rogue Defence unit/department that acts outside of the control of the DoD?
 
gtoffo said:
Strange? That's insane not strange. Why would the DoD release the videos and publicise this if it was an internal test of any kind by any branch under the control of the DoD? Makes no sense at all.

Are we saying there is a rogue Defence unit/department that acts outside of the control of the DoD?
Click to expand...

Well they are not really releasing much. I mean it's some non descriptive reports of drones and balloons.
 
This must be outside of the U.S. government. Unless someone is going rogue which would be even crazier.

I agree with The Drive that the most probable cause is an adversary snooping on the training ranges. Probably Russia given it's the Atlantic.

"So no, as we expected, there isn't any proof here of extremely exotic flying craft or saucers with amazing kinematic performance. Assuming they do not belong to the U.S. government, the fact that they are being deployed in such sensitive airspace seemingly unimpeded is a far larger national security concern than it may seem at first glance."

This is insane no matter the underlying cause and requires a very thorough investigation.

jackfrostvc said:
Well they are not really releasing much. I mean it's some non descriptive reports of drones and balloons.
Click to expand...

They released the videos publicly saying they were still unexplained. Were they expecting the world to just shrug that off? It got covered by every news organisation in the world.
 
Do you understand the actual timeline and parties involved of the videos various releases over the past few years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Deinterlacing The Navy UAP Videos
Replies
15
Views
2K
caitgaist
caitgaist
Mick West
Errors in Luis Elizondo's UFO Book "Imminent"
4 5 6
Replies
217
Views
9K
elvenwear
elvenwear
jarlrmai
Mick West interview with Naval Aviator and F/A-18 pilot Brian Burke
Replies
32
Views
5K
MrXopher
MrXopher
LeastWeasel
What was in the sky over Palmdale CA
Replies
21
Views
1K
jackfrostvc
jackfrostvc
Mick West
Gimbal Range Fouler and Other Reports.
Replies
4
Views
2K
Mendel
Mendel

Latest posts

Back
Top