NYT Story Anticipating the 2022 UAP Report

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Article:
U.F.O. skeptics and experts in optics have long said many of the videos and sightings by naval aviators represent optical illusions that have made ordinary objects — weather balloons, commercial drones — appear to move faster than possible.

Military officials have largely come to the same conclusion.

Besides the images of the green triangles, the other recordings released by the Pentagon have not been categorized as surveillance incidents, at least so far. But Pentagon officials do not believe that any of them represent aliens, either.

One of the videos, referred to as GoFast, appears to show an object moving at immense speed. But an analysis by the military says that is an illusion created by the angle of observation against water. According to Pentagon calculations, the object is moving only about 30 miles per hour.

Another video, known as Gimbal, shows an object that appears to be turning or spinning. Military officials now believe that is the optics of the classified image sensor, designed to help target weapons, make the object appear like it is moving in a strange way.

Military analysts remain puzzled by the third video, known as Flir1. The object captured in the 2004 video appears to hover over the water, jump erratically, then peel away. Military officials say that event is more difficult to explain, but officials who have studied it are convinced it is not a piece of alien technology.


So it seems like the upcoming report, or at least the discussions with officials, largely confirm what we have been saying here for a few years.
 

dimebag2

Active Member
I wonder a few things, because caution is warranted both ways.

Did they have data we don't have?
Did they make detailed analyses ala Sitrec?
Did they talk to the pilots?
What do they think Gimbal and GoFast are?

We all know it's really hard to get a precise speed for GoFast, especially without knowing the wind. Do they suddenly have dedicated analysts, who make precise calculations? Is their 30 Mph estimate a guess, or it comes from detailed calculations including wind data?

Just some thoughts, we'll see if we learn more with the report.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
They seem to be conflating Flir1 with Fravor's et al sighting. The object in Flir1 does not hover over the water, jump up or veer away.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Article:
Military analysts remain puzzled by the third video, known as Flir1. The object captured in the 2004 video appears to hover over the water, jump erratically, then peel away. Military officials say that event is more difficult to explain, but officials who have studied it are convinced it is not a piece of alien technology.

The part in bold is remarkably sub-strandard reporting by NYT since, as pointed out also by @JMartJr, the FLIR video by itself shows no such things.

Overall, the tenor of the article suggests the NYT seems to be slowly admitting there's no there there.
 

RTM

Member
Didn't Leslie Kean and another journalist whose name I can't remember (I seem to recall he was writing a book about John Mack and abductions) write the initial articles "exposing" the Pentagon investigations. I wonder why they aren't continuing the same topic.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Didn't Leslie Kean and another journalist whose name I can't remember (I seem to recall he was writing a book about John Mack and abductions) write the initial articles "exposing" the Pentagon investigations. I wonder why they aren't continuing the same topic.

I hope it's because the NYT editors realized how partial Kean was.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Overall, the tenor of the article suggests the NYT seems to be slowly admitting there's no there there.
I feel more significantly, it's the Pentagon finally commenting on things like Gimbal and GoFast. Previously their silence allowed speculation to run rampant. By revealing at least some of the results of their investigations (like with the Green Pyramid), they can calm things down a bit.
 

yoshy

Member
One of the videos, referred to as GoFast, appears to show an object moving at immense speed. But an analysis by the military says that is an illusion created by the angle of observation against water. According to Pentagon calculations, the object is moving only about 30 miles per hour.

Another video, known as Gimbal, shows an object that appears to be turning or spinning. Military officials now believe that is the optics of the classified image sensor, designed to help target weapons, make the object appear like it is moving in a strange way.

I'll be that guy... I can't wait to see the meltdown reddit UFOs has if the report ends up validating your hypotheses, Mick. *Insert popcorn eating gif*
 

gabelewis

Member

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I feel more significantly, it's the Pentagon finally commenting on things like Gimbal and GoFast. Previously their silence allowed speculation to run rampant. By revealing at least some of the results of their investigations (like with the Green Pyramid), they can calm things down a bit.

Now that you mention it, should an MB member send a FOIA request for their analyses establishing the GoFast optical illusion as due to observation angle and Gimbal due to the sensor?

If they used any open sources in their analysis, you may be mentioned. Although I doubt they'd really admit it. In any case, if their analysis is very similar to yours (as it is pretty much bound to be), having copies of its unclassified parts would serve as a respectable public confirmation of the work done by you and MB. Not to the hardcore believers of course but to many others.
 

yoshy

Member
Now that you mention it, should an MB member send a FOIA request for their analyses establishing the GoFast optical illusion as due to observation angle and Gimbal due to the sensor?

Isn't John Greenwald (blackvault.com) a member here? FOIA is his jam
 

Duke

Active Member
I'll be that guy... I can't wait to see the meltdown reddit UFOs has if the report ends up validating your hypotheses, Mick. *Insert popcorn eating gif*
I'm going to be more interested in seeing if this kicks up a fuss about current and future funding of the various organizations tasked with the investigations. Color of money issues aside, government organizations are always on the look out for opportunities to increase their budgets at the expense of others. "Vultures" as a former boss of mine was wont to refer to them.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
At the hearing in May, the Pentagon declassified the conclusions about two separate images of ghostly green triangles recorded in two incidents, one on the East Coast and one on the West. Officials testified publicly that the green triangles were actually drones, with a trick of the camera lens and night vision technology transforming them into glowing triangles that look like alien spacecraft.
Content from External Source
I wonder if they'll get this one right this time? And if they'll have used Mick's analysis to help them?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
I wonder if they'll get this one right this time? And if they'll have used Mick's analysis to help them?
It would be great if they did, and I think we would all enjoy that. HOWEVER, we should be careful what we wish for. If the DoD analysis ends up containing some of Mick's work, you can already hear the outrage. "Now we know he's a shill! Working with the DoD." Or, "We can't trust the DoD, they just copied the stuff from the game coder guy."

Better if they do their own analysis and it ends up with the same or similar conclusions. That would, I hope, reenforce the notion that what Mick and others do hear is valid and similar to what the DoD is/was doing. For some people at least.

And it doesn't work the other way around for Travis Taylor who was secretly working for the DoD on UFOs, because he's on the "right side" of disclosure.

Didn't Leslie Kean and another journalist whose name I can't remember (I seem to recall he was writing a book about John Mack and abductions) write the initial articles "exposing" the Pentagon investigations. I wonder why they aren't continuing the same topic.
Ralph Blumenthal was the other writer. Hopefully it's like LilWabbit alluded to above, they've realized Kean is and activist, not a journalist.

The New York Post, often considered the Times inferior right leaning tabloidish competition, had a great UFO/ATIP/AASWAP story that includes Kean in a Showtime documentary saying she withheld things from her NYT report, because she was trying to give UFOs "credibility". Video below should be queued up to just before she says this.

Maybe allowing the Post any small tidbit to attempt to tarnish the "Ol Grey Lady was too much. We'll see.

Source: https://youtu.be/6XD4gQS_-qY?t=1597
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
If the DoD analysis ends up containing some of Mick's work, you can already hear the outrage. "Now we know he's a shill! Working with the DoD." Or, "We can't trust the DoD, they just copied the stuff from the game coder guy."
Unfortunately you are probably correct. There's a subset of people for whom no factual information can override their fixed beliefs. And among those, it is not always easy to separate devotees of the sci-fi explanations from those who exploit the others for their own publicity and profit.
 

dimebag2

Active Member
The question is really whether they have made detailed calculations to draw their conclusions. It doesn't take much to see Gofast is slow and high at the given range, this was solved a day after release. And have these unofficial sources identified what the Gimbal object is? Those are the real questions imo.

We'll see on Monday, but from how the NYT reporter talks about FLIR1, it doesn't sound like he was well informed when writing his article.
 

dimebag2

Active Member
That's the least debunked in my book. Only the fact that the object is "zipping off" at the end has been explained by the ATFLIR losing lock while Underwood goes through zoom settings. It really depends on what you consider debunked should be.

We still don't know what the object was (and I don't want to have that debate again). In fact I had thrown out a little challenge here, to use Sitrec to find a match for a distant plane. It's not easy at all.
 

yoshy

Member
That's the least debunked in my book. Only the fact that the object is "zipping off" at the end has been explained by the ATFLIR losing lock while Underwood goes through zoom settings. It really depends on what you consider debunked should be.

We still don't know what the object was (and I don't want to have that debate again). In fact I had thrown out a little challenge here, to use Sitrec to find a match for a distant plane. It's not easy at all.

Thanks for the clarification. That actually matches up with the quote "Military officials say that event is more difficult to explain, but officials who have studied it are convinced it is not a piece of alien technology." No identification yet but also no evidence it does anything otherworldly.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
We still don't know what the object was (and I don't want to have that debate again). In fact I had thrown out a little challenge here, to use Sitrec to find a match for a distant plane. It's not easy at all.
It's not easy because we don't have an exact time and location. The Pentagon may know, though.
 

dimebag2

Active Member
It has nothing to do with exact time and location, it's about the geometry, angular size and lines of sight. And apparence that shows no exhaust. They themselves say it's difficult to explain.
 

jackfrostvc

Senior Member
Question still remains for me in regards to the Tic Tac incident, why is Fravors account so different to the event report that was posted with the first leak of the TicTac video in 2007
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
It has nothing to do with exact time and location, it's about the geometry, angular size and lines of sight. And apparence that shows no exhaust. They themselves say it's difficult to explain.

The time and location comment of Mendel was a reference to Sitrec.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
It has nothing to do with exact time and location, it's about the geometry, angular size and lines of sight. And apparence that shows no exhaust. They themselves say it's difficult to explain.
Identifying airliners on metabunk is easy with the observation's location and time, though going back that many years is challenging and maybe impossible.

I don't see a) that the UAP shows no exhaust, and b) why that is impossible. But I expect that is better discussed in a more relevant thread.
 

gabelewis

Member

jarlrmai

Senior Member
The report is stated to be released today. Does anyone know where it might be formally released and when? Thanks.
 
Top