Tim Phillips lends credence to the existence of anomalous black triangle UFOs

[Mendel]

The em dash is a common trope in AI writings.

Drat—I've been exposed!

 

[jackfrostvc]

In the discussion Mick West had with Tim Phillips. Tim mentions that he didn't think they had connected with the Gimbal pilot to discuss that case with him. He then says he cant say for sure if AARO never connected with the Gimbal pilot as it's possible someone else in AARO may have done so and he wasn't aware.

It's amazing after all these years, we still don't know who they are. I mean even the WSO in Fravors jet leaked as did the Pilot in Underwoods jet. But nothing for the Gimbal. I have asked around, but even the people that told me who Fravors WSO was and Underwoods pilot, he didnt know either. No one I have spoken to knows. I'm sure some people must know, like Graves etc. But no leaks. And now Tim Phillips saying what he did to me just added to the mystery, very strange

From below it seems the pilot was from VFA-11 squadron

 

[Ann K]

The em dash is a common trope in AI writings

Oh doggone it, I've been outed as an AI bot by a simple punctuation mark.

 

[JMartJr]

It's amazing after all these years, we still don't know who they are. I mean even the WSO in Fravors jet leaked as did the Pilot in Underwoods jet. But nothing for the Gimbal. I have asked around, but even the people that told me who Fravors WSO was and Underwoods pilot, he didnt know either. No one I have spoken to knows. I'm sure some people must know, like Graves etc. But no leaks. And now Tim Phillips saying what he did to me just added to the mystery, very strange

Were I the suspicious type, I would wonder if there is not any actual incident for this and Go Fast, but that they are just some footage with some "Woo hoo gee whiz!" dialogue dubbed over to dramatize rookie mistakes being made...

 

[jarlrmai]

AARO just don't seem to care that much about the big 3 videos, they want to work on fresh cases, which is totally understandable.

They just don't have any goal that involves taking the wind out the sails of the modern UFO movement, I mean it is how they got funded

 

[Mendel]

AARO just don't seem to care that much about the big 3 videos, they want to work on fresh cases, which is totally understandable.

It's not about "want", it's about "can't" because there is simply not enough evidence to do anything about these cases.

 

[jarlrmai]

It's not about "want", it's about "can't" because there is simply not enough evidence to do anything about these cases.

There's a lot that could be done to try and show non alien hypotheses make sense / are feasible for the 3 videos

Attempts at recreation of the videos with the same or equivalent equipment would be difficult to arrange, expensive and time consuming, but possible with the resources of the US government.

But that's not the priority for them at least now, but you give me that money and access and that's what i'd be doing, that GIMBAL video is backing up a lot the this current flap.

 

[Edward Current]

The em dash is a common trope in AI writings. This vid is quite good:

The em dash is a common trope in human writings.

The later parts of that video are pretty good, but as a pro copy editor, I'm among many in the comments who thought that the first part is way off base (suggesting that if something is written with correct grammar and punctuation, and parallel structure, it's probably fake).

Just another sign that the idiocracy is here, I guess.

 

[MapperGuy]

There's a lot that could be done to try and show non alien hypotheses make sense / are feasible for the 3 videos

Attempts at recreation of the videos with the same or equivalent equipment would be difficult to arrange, expensive and time consuming, but possible with the resources of the US government.

But that's not the priority for them at least now, but you give me that money and access and that's what i'd be doing, that GIMBAL video is backing up a lot the this current flap.

Creation of an "encyclopedia" of 'what does this type of aircraft look like when viewed by these particular sensors' would be very handy. As you say, probably only the government could create it, and because the government created it people would assume it's all fake.

The problem is so few people know what things actually look like when viewed by IR systems, but do know how they are portrayed to look by special effects artists and CGI in movies and TV. Real life is never so clean as fiction makes it.

 

[jdog]

Creation of an "encyclopedia" of 'what does this type of aircraft look like when viewed by these particular sensors' would be very handy. As you say, probably only the government could create it, and because the government created it people would assume it's all fake.
...

The other dimension to that is time — we're talking about sensors from 2004, 2014 and 2015, after all. And none of the sensors are standalone items, they're all integrated into different systems and have different post-processing applied.

I still suspect GIMBAL only gets so much attention from the wider public because the shape resembles a classic flying saucer, even though that doesn't fit in with the UAPs people say are out there: tictacs, orbs, triangles, rectangles.

 

[RustamShah]

To preface one part, there is no such thing as "core black" or other variations like "deep black" programs. These are terms made up by people resting on the public not understanding proper terminology of the sort to try and perceptively raise credence.

So, as for "PSYOP" - no. PSYOP is a specific practice. At the most, what we have with these events when they do occur, are a mix of either counterintelligence, OPSEC, and/or DISO.
PSYOP is a form of mass communication within (certain nations, important distinction) military communication practices. CI and OPSEC are not communication fields at all. Deception Activities are blended communication functions, although, explicitly, not mass communication. These can be supported by PSYOP folks, but we have no indicators of such ever occurring at all.


Now, when we speak to the above three categories of practices;
-DISO does not seek to target persons, at all. Rather, it targets adversarial intelligence sensors and sensory aides.
-Offensive CI can target individual persons, including public persons. In any of these cases, it would relate to preventing, disrupting, or degrading hostile intelligence activities, not the general public.
-OPSEC is focused on information itself. It does consider threats and resulting risks, but any sort of messaging or etc would be carried out by another.

Using the understandings from any of these 3 fields, none of the 4 objectives above make much sense.
"Keep the circle extremely small" - This would fall under either OPSEC or CI. In implementation terms, this would be achieved through things program compartmentalization, bigot lists, controlled access, etc. Releasing false information does not inherently benefit this and is unlikely to be done for said reason.

"Discredit potential leakers by mixing truth with BS" - This hits the issues with not understanding the fields of reference. None of those target the public like that, this only works in the public knowledge context. Intelligence services generally do not care about woo if you have access they want, such is what analysis is for. This is why the Soviets for example would explicitly send officers to UFO conventions and etc to try and pick up references from people working on R&D programs in the military.
Now, if adjusted, this can 'work' in some ways. For example, using proper references, you could use false planted information as such so if that person is recruited or leaks, it *degrades the quality of information* which in turn can degrade adversarial intelligence processes.

"Confuse adversaries by projecting 'maybe we have alien tech'" - This was done so much during the Cold War that it does not really get serious traction with the specific folks we're talking about and involves a much larger wall on emerging science developments at the time spurring prior occurances even 'working' (eg Soviets research into psychotronics, which spurred all the US para- developments wrt the new age military science era). To break this line down properly would involve a whole wall of its own too, it's not as issued as the others in ideation but goes back to the point of it being an explicit need to actually use related practices understandings rather than pop-culture references.

"Use media attention as a smoke screen while real R&D continues" - This is a thing for some countries in their related understandings, but at least for the US this is not really a thing in that regard. If it ever does come up, it's not as a formal objective, but more a pocket idea from a commander (which would then be formalized by referenced practitioners).

Also no hate but your post seems like it was written by AI. There is not a single public AI that uses proper training data for these topics and instead are inundated with training data that roots with the pop-culture understandings of these ideas rather than actual source materials - I would not recommend using AI to answer these sorts of questions.

Appreciate the detailed response. Just to clarify, English is not my first language, so I use a text editor that helps with grammar, spelling, and clarity. It might be using AI in the background, but the content and ideas are entirely mine and not generated automatically. Also worth mentioning, I'm looking at all of this from outside the US, which might affect how I interpret certain terms or practices.

I understand your points about the terminology and will look into those areas more carefully. Thanks again for taking the time to respond with that level of depth.

As for why the whole UFO and military topic feels so confusing, I think it's partly because too many layers overlap, real tech, classified programs, Cold War legacy ideas, and a mix of sincere witnesses and attention-seekers. Add a public that's naturally curious and a government that rarely clarifies anything directly, and it turns into a perfect recipe for speculation to fill the gaps.

 

[JMartJr]

The other dimension to that is time — we're talking about sensors from 2004, 2014 and 2015, after all. And none of the sensors are standalone items, they're all integrated into different systems and have different post-processing applied.

I still suspect GIMBAL only gets so much attention from the wider public because the shape resembles a classic flying saucer, even though that doesn't fit in with the UAPs people say are out there: tictacs, orbs, triangles, rectangles.

That, and if you do not know that the camera is rotating at the exact time the UFO is rotating, it just looks weird and inexplicable.

 

[NorCal Dave]

As for why the whole UFO and military topic feels so confusing, I think it's partly because too many layers overlap, real tech, classified programs, Cold War legacy ideas, and a mix of sincere witnesses and attention-seekers. Add a public that's naturally curious and a government that rarely clarifies anything directly, and it turns into a perfect recipe for speculation to fill the gaps.

AI or not, well stated. The UFO phenomenon is a confluence of various things as you point out.

Ultimately, the UFO phenomenon lacks any actual tangible evidence. There are some photos of lights, videos of fuzzy things, maybe a few radar tracks, lots of eye witnesses and lots of rumors. The crashed UFO being reveres engineered by the government is one of the persistent rumors, likely with multiple sources.

From your first post:

What if the U.S. gov intentionally fed false UAP data to some of its own intelligence officers?

According to Phillips, something like this might have happened. He describes a training exercise used to teach people how to bring new people into a Special Access Program (SAP). They had to learn how to warn new recruits about their legal responsibilities, the limits of their access, what they could and couldn't know and how to relay other important information.

Phillips claim is that, at some point in the past, people being trained to do this would role play that they were introducing new recruits into a UFO Special Access Program. The SAP and some assorted files, were fake, but the importance of how new recruits were brought into SAPs was very real. It was a very real training session, using a fake program for training purposes.

Phillips also claims that this got further complicated, as other members of the military and Intelligence community begin using this fake SAP training procedure to haze new people. For most it was a joke, a way of becoming part of the club, but for a few it was very real.

The important thing, is IF these claims are true, it was a legitimate training procedure being missued by some as a hazing event. It was never a diversion by the government to hide a real UFO program. There is really no need, as the concept of crashed UFOs has been a part of the popular culture since the '40s.

Just for fun. Is there an AI I can use to rewrite my post here in your native language?

 

[NorCal Dave]

@Mick West , are you going to make a thread in the TFTRH forum for the Tim Phillips interview? I thought there was some great information in it beyond this thread topic about black triangles. Didn't want to post a bunch of sorta off topic stuff here.

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

Appreciate the detailed response. Just to clarify, English is not my first language, so I use a text editor that helps with grammar, spelling, and clarity. It might be using AI in the background, but the content and ideas are entirely mine and not generated automatically. Also worth mentioning, I'm looking at all of this from outside the US, which might affect how I interpret certain terms or practices.

I understand your points about the terminology and will look into those areas more carefully. Thanks again for taking the time to respond with that level of depth.

As for why the whole UFO and military topic feels so confusing, I think it's partly because too many layers overlap, real tech, classified programs, Cold War legacy ideas, and a mix of sincere witnesses and attention-seekers. Add a public that's naturally curious and a government that rarely clarifies anything directly, and it turns into a perfect recipe for speculation to fill the gaps.

Like I said no hate on the AI point either, just because of the training data issue (not on you at all) it can skew references too even if being used for translation or formatting. Knowing that gives you the edge on how to use it but the issue there is fully on the training data for the AI & on the company not you.

Also, viewing it from outside the US angle is a good thing! Especially when discussing the government & military topics, it's a common issue that we use US terms that have hyper-specific meanings and understandings behind them. Other nations have varying degrees of their own difference, from distinct definitions or understandings of shared terms to things entirely non-comparative. Of course we are talking about the US in this case, but that 'outside view' is a great enabler.
If you have any questions or would like any specific resources in those areas feel free to shoot me a message, happy to help out if it interests ya.

 

[Ann K]

Attempts at recreation of the videos with the same or equivalent equipment would be difficult to arrange, expensive and time consuming, but possible with the resources of the US government.

What a pity that hoaxes and misidentifications are so much easier and cheaper than the debunking of them.

And what a pity I couldn't manage to put an em dash in that sentence.

 

[John J.]

Unless that's a really big pencil, the Wasp shown by Greenstreet is nowhere near a couple of metres (39") in any dimension.

Oops, too late to edit the above post- one metre is approx. 39 inches (3'3"), 2m = approx. 78 inches (6'6").

(Thankfully, doesn't affect the point being made- Wasp UAV isn't 1m in size, let alone 2m).

 

[elvenwear]

Oh doggone it, I've been outed as an AI bot by a simple punctuation mark.

That means I've been previously out-pedanted by a bot. How will I survive this?

 

[Giddierone]

Sooo, they recently flew 13 B-2s halfway around the globe and not a single black triangle sighting in the news so far...

 

[FatPhil]

Sooo, they recently flew 13 B-2s halfway around the globe and not a single black triangle sighting in the news so far...

Not surprising - they were cloaked.

 

[Giddierone]

I heard they were actually a distraction for the phalanx of remote viewers who did the real damage to those underground facilities. What else could the "historically reliable and accurate source/method" be?


Source: https://x.com/CIADirector/status/1937964888967823652