gtoffo
Active Member
Why do you think I don't?
Explained: The Navy UFO Videos
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Why do you think I don't?
deirdre
Senior Member.
These videos were released like 2 years ago. if you google with " site:metabunk.org " plus TTSA, To the Stars Academy, Elizondo, AATIP, Bigelow, you can find easier related threads.
Basically these videos came out years ago. There was a US government agency AATIP (aeronautics advanced something something) that allegedly Elizondo "ran" and the job of this government agency was to investigate these things. We have to assume AATIP did that. When Elizondo quit this program he first got he videos approved for public release and then he gave them to his new commercial enterprise To the Stars Academy. (note: in all his years of searching gov databases for ufos he only found 3 interesting enough to take with him).
Independent 'investigators' have been studying these videos since then.
As far as the gov further investigating these specific videos, they are from 2004 and 2015. AATIP supposedly investigated and nothing came of it. (except the labels Elizondo or whoever named the videos, which likely designate the conclusion of the investigations)
gtoffo
Active Member
Thanks for the recap @deirdre but I am very familiar with those events and their publishing history 
The DoD told us last week those are still unexplained phenomena and decided to release the videos for the record.
The DoD told us last week those are still unexplained phenomena and decided to release the videos for the record.
- As Mick has discussed with Tim McMillan they couldn't have said something they know to be false without breaking federal law. Which I think is significant. So I trust it is still unexplained.
- If this was a secret program by some DoD controlled entity why did they choose to release the videos and attract all this attention to them? I don't think they were obliged to do so but maybe I don't understand some finer points of FOIA requests.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
The likely released them because they were probably snowed under by FOIA requests by the UFO community and decided that it would relieve administrative pressure they just released them. Up until then the source for the videos was the TTSA.
The US Navy considers them unidentified, this might mean a number of things but what is does do is allow them to release them without having to say what they likely are which might mean they don't know the exact objects in the frame or it might just mean they never really looked into them. EIther way they can relieve the FOIA department from this pressure and never have to admit to the capability or otherwise of the systems in the videos. It doesn't mean the Navy thinks that something other than a manmade or natural object is in either of the videos.
The US Navy considers them unidentified, this might mean a number of things but what is does do is allow them to release them without having to say what they likely are which might mean they don't know the exact objects in the frame or it might just mean they never really looked into them. EIther way they can relieve the FOIA department from this pressure and never have to admit to the capability or otherwise of the systems in the videos. It doesn't mean the Navy thinks that something other than a manmade or natural object is in either of the videos.
deirdre
Senior Member.
they said (see OP for link, Op=Opening Post), bold for emphasis
External Quote:
They already had tons of attention at them.
I split the above quote into paragraphs. the second paragraph answers this. they were 1) unclassified 2)did not reveal any sensitive info 3) would not impinge on an investigation
The American public has a right to all government information unless it meets the Freedom of Information Act Exemptions criteria.
jmmrios
New Member
where he could find links to technical data from the manufacturer of those FLIR systems, specifically concerning DEROTATE Systems. He got all info about the rotating PRISM called DEROTATE PRISM, developed specifically to establishing a stable image independently of the movements attack aircraft do. This derotate prism has no relation with the DEROTATE SYSTEM you told has the ability to keep horizon line stable while target flare/image turns independently of the horizon line.
gtoffo
Active Member
Possible. Why not just release them to one of the FOIA petitioners in a quiet manner and let only UFO researches deal with it? Why the grand announcement?
You say "which might mean:
- they don't know the exact objects in the frame OR
- it might just mean they never really looked into them"
Isn't that a possibility? Why should this be a conspiracy by the government and not just the truth?
No. But it doesn't mean they don't think it could be something else either.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Them releasing them to one request would probably not stem the requests from other requesters, they were already leaked people were looking for other information related to them
No sure how "they don't know the exact objects in the frame" excludes them investigating and not getting an accurate enough answer for them, there's a hint that they might have investigated them in the category on the original public clearance doc release that lists the subject area of the videos as "UAV, Balloons and other UAS."
UAV meaning Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (commonly called a drone)
UAS meaning Unmanned Aerial System (generally referring to a UAV and the supporting systems)
No-one here thinks there is a conspiracy quite the opposite, we believe the videos are most likely mundane and that the Navy likely thinks so as well.
The investigations here are a reaction to the investigation/claims with regards to the contents of the videos of others not the Navy.
No sure how "they don't know the exact objects in the frame" excludes them investigating and not getting an accurate enough answer for them, there's a hint that they might have investigated them in the category on the original public clearance doc release that lists the subject area of the videos as "UAV, Balloons and other UAS."
UAV meaning Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (commonly called a drone)
UAS meaning Unmanned Aerial System (generally referring to a UAV and the supporting systems)
No-one here thinks there is a conspiracy quite the opposite, we believe the videos are most likely mundane and that the Navy likely thinks so as well.
The investigations here are a reaction to the investigation/claims with regards to the contents of the videos of others not the Navy.
gtoffo
Active Member
So you think they will stop now? This will only increase the flood obviously
Sure sounds like a conspiracy to me. If they know what it is why don't they say so? Why lie? Especially if "the Navy likely thinks the videos have mundane explanations". Why not say what it is? "The phenomena is likely X" and we wouldn't be here no more.
The most probable explanations are (in order of probability):
- they mean what they say. They investigated and don't know what it is. This is consistent with the leaked executive report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TIC_TAC_UFO_EXECUTIVE_REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf
- they know what it is and it isn't mundane at all so they would rather not say (secret project? adversaries? might risk breaking federal law though since they would be lying or stretching the truth a lot)
Occam's razor points to the first explanation.
deirdre
Senior Member.
he did not say any of those things.
You acting like this is some incredible new development (the release) or the release is somehow shocking, doesn't make sense.
Keith Beachy
Senior Member
The DoD does not know everything about all the DoD things going on. A while back when I was in charge of airspace somewhere in CA (okay, supposed scheduling office), another DoD entity contacted "me" about a possible thermal event in the area we scheduled. I knew F-111s at depot nearby would go to the areas and "flight test" their aircraft... and F-111 had a fuel dump where they could make a giant flame... (doing a fuel dump flame is most likely not required to complete an FCF flight)Thanks for the recap @deirdre but I am very familiar with those events and their publishing history
The DoD told us last week those are still unexplained phenomena and decided to release the videos for the record.
All of this doesn't make much sense.
- As Mick has discussed with Tim McMillan they couldn't have said something they know to be false without breaking federal law. Which I think is significant. So I trust it is still unexplained.
- If this was a secret program by some DoD controlled entity why did they choose to release the videos and attract all this attention to them? I don't think they were obliged to do so but maybe I don't understand some finer points of FOIA requests.
I could not confirm the thermal event, the depot did not schedule the area, but I knew from experience USAF aircraft might venture into areas without being scheduled, I know first had from crews which used Warning Areas to play in.
If DARPA was testing a hyper-sonic vehicle, a secret, why would they tell the navy their hyper-sonic vehicle crashed in the Pacific? It is a secret. The Navy did not say the UFO was anything from beyond earth, and all the claims, if made, it did stuff that is beyond the this world are nonsense. (if made)
There is no reason DARPA would be obligated to tell the navy of their secret program. Having worked at WPAFB, and then working with the F-117 during Desert Storm, DoD does not have to tell all until it is unclassified, even to the Nave Guys who post videos of "aircraft flying against the wind" a very silly statement because we fly in the air. That "against the wind" comment pretty much ruins any real credibility for me since when I fly, there is no real against the wind relative to me, save a time we might be near a jet stream and the vehicle in question is in the core of the jet stream, and relativity to my aircraft might be a factor.
As for know who is in your Warning Area, I have more examples. During a "secret" SR-71 refueling next to Okinawa, we were in orbit waiting for the SR to take off and give him his first refueling. While in orbit a F-86 with a tow target in trail passed at our altitude in our Warning Area. As we orbited we could see what looked like bees (fighters below us) engaging the tow target... I a few minutes, a fighter pilot saw us, and on Guard called "knock it off", and we talked to the fighters and said we would be clear in a few minutes, as we rendezvoused with the SR and left the area on course to finish the refueling. This is one of many examples I personally have in the USAF where different units did not schedule properly, or know what they shared in the same airspace.
We were waiting for an SR, this is not near Okinawa, this is the western USA...
I have known the Navy to be Not "by the book", as I have been intercepted in International airspace on an international flight plan, in the middle of no where, with no warning by F-14s, who job is to protect the fleet they are attached to. The F-14 came right up to the cockpit in formation, and then did a Split-S, and never talked to us. We were in a KC-135. Did the Navy schedule the airspace they were in and check with other DoD units? NASA? DARPA? et al
Who said party balloons... When I told ATC about party-balloons over Oregon at 28,000 feet they sounded like they did not believe me. No big deal. Years early flying between Guam and Okinawa and Hawaii I have seen a big silver object (UFO) which was most likely a balloon which was at a very high altitude which appears to be follow us, but it is due to perspective and great altitude difference.
Not exactly on topic, there are flying rules. I recall someone bought their brand new Biz Jet, and just took off without an IFR clearance and flew through controlled airspace which required an IFR clearance and failed to talk to anyone. ATC followed, on Radar, and had the pilot violated at the airport he landed at.
The video is already out there, why not officially release what was already "officially" released? As explained in above post.
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
@Mick West
What are your thoughts on the new pilot reports leading up to the Gimbal event?
Seems they encountered drones and balloons , even the quadcopter type at altitude remaining still in wind.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ts-from-navy-pilots-flying-off-the-east-coast
What are your thoughts on the new pilot reports leading up to the Gimbal event?
Seems they encountered drones and balloons , even the quadcopter type at altitude remaining still in wind.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ts-from-navy-pilots-flying-off-the-east-coast
Your photo reminded me of the time I was out at Goldstone, filling the government car with gas at Echo station, and looked up to see something very similar to the above. Big lazy circle over the desert.
Ah, the memories!
Cheers - Jon
I have nothing to add really. Drones and balloons are a problem. Sometimes pilots see them. There are concerns some of them might be from a foreign power.
gtoffo
Active Member
This is a bit of a stretch of interpretation Mick. I don't think you have enough information to dismiss this as "balloons". I'll try to explain my POV in detail here as other's have asked also @deirdre.
Some of those reports are extremely weird such as "The crew initially detected two UADs on radar, one at 12,000 feet and another at 15,000 feet, both apparently stationary or near-stationary at 0.0 Mach. They then confirmed both of these objects using the jet's Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) system.
While investigating the first pair of UADs, another two appeared to pass through the ATFLIR field of vision at high-speed. The two moving objects did not appear on the aircraft's radar."
Those descriptions (while very weird from my amateur experience with aerospace technology) are insufficient to conclude anything regarding the subjects of the incidents per se.
But they allow us to conclude some other things.
Assumptions:
- the goal of a Navy carrier strike group is to project military power across the globe by controlling the sea and airspace across a wide area.
- they are equipped with the most advanced technologies available to mankind at the time
- they have multiple, powerful overlapping sensors suites to ensure that nothing may approach the carrier group undetected (including stuff like stealth cruise missiles travelling at hypersonic speeds and supercavitating torpedoes).
- their crews are trained to use their equipment adequately and regularly and know what to look for
- the DoD said a week ago the phenomena in the videos (2 of which are related to those repots) remain currently "unidentified" and their statement is true (not an essential point but important for the DoD related conclusions)
- the Navy made several investigations over the years regarding objects which could operate with impunity over their controlled airspace
- the Navy's capabilities were insufficient to correctly intercept and identify those objects across multiple long lasting incidents
- the Navy doesn't know what they are but they think this is enough of a concern to be a safety issue for its crews "Although this report is primarily submitted for tracking purposes, it is only a matter of time before this results in a midair [collision] in W-72" so they clearly care about those incidents and are not "ignoring them"
- the Navy has informed all branches and escalated those reports requesting coordination (they apparently assumed this was the air force or something of the sort as they say "operation of UAVs and other aerial devices must be properly coordinated" and informed "all UAV Commands", "all activities operating within W-72" etc.)
- This was years ago, but the DoD that oversees all branches says they don't know what this is to this day
If those are not balloons and quadcopters then what the hell are they?
We know what the pilots think about those sightings as those pilots are on the record (Lt. Graves, Lt. Accoin, etc). They don't think those were normal party balloons.
We know there have been congressional hearings regarding this with classified programs discussed by both the Air Force and the Navy.
We may not speculate on what those objects are with this new information. But the response by the DoD and its branches is nothing short of extraordinary.
gtoffo
Active Member
It's an old topic. But this appears to be the new standard label for unidentified "stuff". They are unidentified so you don't know if those were actually objects. So they are not UFO but UAP. Phenomena covers everything from objects, to weather, to radiation, to malfunctions, to anything really.
Also, it reduces the "taboo effect" and the "stigma" associated with the word UFO that seems to be a factor in limiting reporting and investigation into these incidents.
Interesting that this "taboo", especially within military "no-nonsense"/"tuff guys" circles, might have led to them being spied on unconsciously by a foreign adversary (this is one of the most probable explanations at the moment and would be quite an extraordinary conclusion to this whole ordeal).
Really an important warning against having preconceptions and "false skepticism". The world around us and nature gives us evidence. Science teaches us to listen and explore that evidence without haste and without preconceptions and bias.
Last edited:
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
Doubtfull they are from a foreign power when there are things like this in the 2nd incident report from the article I linked
"Most curiously, this report notes that "surface traffic was light with only a single stationary commercial fishing trawler and a single unidentified US Naval vessel traveling south" during the incident, but that "the identity of the Naval vessel in the vicinity was undetermined." It's not at all clear how the Navy was able to determine that one of its ships was operating on the surface in the same general area, but not able to figure out which ship it was specifically."
"Most curiously, this report notes that "surface traffic was light with only a single stationary commercial fishing trawler and a single unidentified US Naval vessel traveling south" during the incident, but that "the identity of the Naval vessel in the vicinity was undetermined." It's not at all clear how the Navy was able to determine that one of its ships was operating on the surface in the same general area, but not able to figure out which ship it was specifically."
Last edited:
gtoffo
Active Member
Yes. The other explanation would be: total and utter incompetence by the Navy.
I'll let others assign the probabilities they see fit but I agree it may very well be an explanation to all of this. It cannot be excluded.
I believe it is much less probable given the size and resources available to such an organisation. It would require many, many, many things to go wrong at the same time and many checks and balances to fail spectacularly.
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
It's not incompetance if it were a secretive program or black project test.
Go and listen to a TD Barnes talk where he mentions how the US own defence forces didn't know about the SR71, and how US pilots used to report it as a UFO.
gtoffo
Active Member
Usually external private companies are used exactly for this purpose. It isn't "us" doing the test. We didn't know Skunkworks was testing this. Did the DoD make any comment at the time though? I don't think so.
Any government entity is prohibited from lying purposefully to the American people. Even if this is a black project. They can use propaganda and lies against foreign adversaries and nation. But not the taxpayers (who are ultimately themselves). Could they use the "external company" trick even in this case to say they have no clue? Maybe... but it would set up a pretty complex legal precedent and may be challengeable in court (incidentally what would it be if they were convicted of lying to the taxpayers in this case? Treason by the Secretary of Defense? Or the command in chief? Oh boy!).
EDIT: I think the relevant policy is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith–Mundt_Act
Last edited:
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
How is it a lie if they honestly don't know. If they say we conducted an investigation - which asked the pilots who couldn't identify the craft, and they report such. No lie has been given. Doesn't mean a secret part of the defense force responsible for black or secretive projects didn't know what it was. I think this whole can't lie thing has been overplayed and the real world scenarios have been over looked
gtoffo
Active Member
Not really. That's a "Statement by the Department of Defense". It's basically the Secretary of defence addressing the nation officially. Not a lot of wiggle room there.
If there is a "secret part of the defence force" the pilots may not know. But the President and the Secretary of Defense sure do. That's the level this communication is coming from. That's as high as it gets.
P.s. old but gold: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclusive-trump-unidentified-flying-objects/story?id=63725191
After congressional hearings where he was briefed on the events that led to those reports the President said: "they say they saw UFOs" and "our great pilots would know... some of them really see things which are a little bit different from the past" We know what Lt. Graves thinks. Those were not normal sightings according to him and Lt. Accoin. And they were in VFA-11 that made several of the published reports. So it seems to go all the way to the top starting from the pilots themselves.
At this point: we need to assume a conspiracy of some kind to think the DoD is not being honest regarding those incidents. All evidence points to this being still unexplained by the DoD.
Last edited:
gtoffo
Active Member
Yes and this is actually one of the stranger things of all. Why do the new radars detect them? (at the time of Nimitz the SPY 1-B had no problems while all other radars including the one of the Hawkeye which is very powerful had weird issues). I think most probably the things are just too small/low observable/stealth and only the new radars manage to get a good lock.
Last edited:
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
This guy took an analog FLIR of an F/18 as it flew away from him.
Got to be honest, it looks a lot like the Gimbal video
@Mick West What are your thoughts on it ?
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFj-URCOsWA
Got to be honest, it looks a lot like the Gimbal video
@Mick West What are your thoughts on it ?
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFj-URCOsWA
gtoffo
Active Member
We are discussing exactly this here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-shape-and-size-of-glare-around-bright-lights.10596/
We are trying to figure out what the shape of the IR glare seen in GIMBAL means and what it may say about the thing producing it.
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
I dont see the video I posted in that thread
gtoffo
Active Member
Dave Falch (the author) is mentioned a couple of times.
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
Yes, but not the video I posted.
Stan Yankov
New Member
Hi, Mick! Awesome place! I'm so glad I found it. Respect for Your work! Sorry if such a question has already been asked. In Your demonstration, the glare rotates all the time You rotate the camera. In Gimbal, the object rotates between 8 L and 5 R. According to Your explanation, the object should rotate all the time. Between 54 L and 7 R. Sorry if this has already been commented.
Yea, the real setup is more complicated, I think briefly mention this on one of the videos. Much of the tracking comes from the heliostat mirrors - these are a series of mirrors that can rotate around one axis each and are used for fine tracking. But at some point when going from left to right the main front housing needs to rotate by a large amount. This is discussed in the patent as happening somewhere near 0°
Stan Yankov
New Member
Thanks for the reply. We have six states of the captured object. Between 54 L and 25 L the object looks like an acorn. It has no special rays of reflection. It doesn't seem to spin. WHT passes into BLK at 36 L and there is no significant change. Between 25 L and 15 L there is something like a reflection below. It doesn't seem to spin. Between 15 L and 13 L the object makes a small rotation. Between 13 L and 8 L, the object does not appear to rotate. Between 8 L and 6 L the object makes a small rotation. Between 6 L and 3 L the object does not appear to rotate. Between 3 L and 2 R the object makes a pronounced rotation. The object does not appear to rotate between 2 R and 3 R. At 4 R, the object rotates slightly and is now 90 degrees from its 16 L position. The camera rotates all the time. The camera is -2 all the time. The rotation is done in 4 parts. It looks very torn.
Last edited:
jmmrios
New Member
Last edited by a moderator:
In the above video, Corbell basically present a strawman version of the argument, asking if the derotation mechanism can cause the apparent rotation of the object. Since this is obviously impossible (derotation just rotates everything the same amound) , his guest has no problem debunking it - although in perhaps are rather roundabout way.
A longer version of this rebuttal can be found here:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OVt_SkhCdw
A longer version of this rebuttal can be found here:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OVt_SkhCdw
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
Is it me, or does the Gimbal pilot mention flares after the 28 second mark ?
"well the flares look .. "
And he is then cut off mid sentence by the WSO talking
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKHg-vnTFsM
"well the flares look .. "
And he is then cut off mid sentence by the WSO talking
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKHg-vnTFsM
Impossible to say really. It could be "well at first look" or "well affairs l..."
It's easy to subtitle something with indistinct austio and have your brain think that's what is going on. Like something what's the very first sentence of the video? Is that a "drone" or "going-on"?
If only the actual pilots were around.
Agent K
Senior Member
I heard, "Well, if there's a..."
AlexRussek
New Member
I'm curious if anyone has found the planes responsible for FLIR1 and GIMBLE like with the Chilean UFO. The location, date and time, were released correct?
An interesting document popped up in a google search
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading Room/Public_Affairs/20-F-1022 Doc_Opaque.pdf
Seems to be partially redacted email exchanges about Navy PR.
Just a couple of snippets from emails or documents
Source: https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1341391376672575489
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading Room/Public_Affairs/20-F-1022 Doc_Opaque.pdf
Seems to be partially redacted email exchanges about Navy PR.
Just a couple of snippets from emails or documents
(That shows up several times)External Quote:
External Quote:
[Update] Looks like this came from an FOIA request from D. Dean JohnsonExternal Quote:
Source: https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1341391376672575489
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
White orb over arizona that "zips into space", video from tiktok
- Latest: NorCal Dave
-
-
