OK, but this form covers 3 videos. Don't you think we can at least exclude the FLIR video (ie. the one from the Nimitz) as being a balloon ? Could a balloon have broken the camera tracking lock like it does at the end of the video ?
Also of note, as far as I know the abbreviations UAV and UAS typically stand for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle and Unmanned Aerial System (ie. drones). I don't think the "U" stands for unidentified.
So in fact all three "Subject Area" items listed have well-established meanings within the military that reside within terrestrial phenomena. UAV is known to mean "unmanned aerial vehicle," "Balloons" are obviously terrestrial, and UAS is also known to mean "unmanned aerial system."
I think that's very likely. Although I'd not rule out some non-UAV jet for Nimitz and Gimbal.From this new info I suspect Nimitz and Gimbal are UAV and Go Fast is a balloon, as we surmised.
I'd say it's more one subject area (UAS) with two sub-areas (UAV and Balloons).
I think that's very likely. Although I'd not rule out some non-UAV jet for Nimitz and Gimbal.
The Nimitz video is called "FLIR". There was speculation (months ago) that some or all of the videos might be training videos used to show the types of misidentification the pilots make, with the names related to the underlying cause.
- FLIR - mistaking a heat signature for the actual shape?
- Gimbal (presumably "gimble" is a misspelling) - mistaking gimbal-related flare rotation for actual rotation?
- Go Fast - mistaking apparent speed from parallax for actual speed?
The names (FLIR,GIMBAL, GO FAST) have me wondering where the videos came from. The US Navy has a system of labeling their video/image files. It set out by OPNAVINST 3104.1 dated 9 Oct 09
Each photograph/video should have a VIRIN
The VIRIN consists of 15 data elements in the following format: YYMMDD-S-ANNNN-NNN. Following is a description of the data elements for the VIRIN fields (with a dash between each field)"
I also found the mention of a VIRIN in OPNAVINST 3104.3 (NAVAL COMBAT CAMERA (COMCAM) PROGRAM POLICY,
RESPONSIBILITIES, AND PROCEDURES) states the following about the VIRIN:
"The VIRIN is the life-cycle number used for accessioning, storing, and retrieving of all DOD media. Each unit of media,
which satisfies the definition of an official Navy VI record shall be assigned a VIRIN. For example, unless discarded, each
original 35mm transparency or negative, each original digital still image file, each original roll of motion picture film, or
each original videotape cassette recorded or produced by persons acting for or on behalf of Navy activities, functions or
missions shall be assigned a VIRIN."
If these videos were directly from the US Navy, the form would reference the VIRIN and not some name that appears to be created by whoever presented the video. This makes me believe that the three videos came from Bigelow, who obtained the clips from the internet (which is why the FLIR is so low quality) or private sources (he had at least one Navy pilot in his group).
nothing matches up.
and the fact that LITERALLY there is no approval "signature" anywhere on that document.except for the subject area field.
Of course they "would have originated with the Navy." That rather makes my point... and then would have been transferred to AATIP for investigation. But there's no corroborating evidence that AATIP investigated UAP/UFOs. And AATIP also did not posses the videos.I would disagree with that.
If the videos are what they are claimed to be they would certainly have originated with the Navy. AATIP would have obtained them via some mechanism because (if we accept Elizondo's statements) they were tasked with investigating UAP reports throughout the military.
So the files resided with the Navy but followed a naming convention by AATIP? The simpler explanation is the fact that the DD 1910 requests the Title, not the VIRIN, so the titles and not the VIRINs were given.The names do seem strange since they could hardly uniquely identify these videos. However once AATIP obtained them it's possible they were free to name them however they wanted since not being part of the Navy they wouldn't have been subject to the Navy's naming requirements.
Sure, it matches up in the most superficial way... they were approved for release by the military.Overall it seems to me that the DD-1910 largely matches up with what Elizondo has said about how the videos were released, except for the subject area field.
That file and its homepageand the fact that LITERALLY there is no approval "signature" anywhere on that document.
and can you request 3 seperate things in one request? I'm trying to google that but @igoddard 's link keeps telling me its not available.
what do they do if someone wanted to release 2 of the requests but not the third?
Greenewald has been unable to locate it after extensive FOIA interrogatio
ah. thanks.take forever to respond, I guess some browsers will give up.
But there's no corroborating evidence that AATIP investigated UAP/UFOs
He has said that the FOIA request for the DD-1910 is still outstanding, so I don't think you can draw any conclusions from that.
i havent really been keeping up... if "Flir", "Gimbal" etc were mp3s available to the public wouldnt a bunch of other people have requested the originals through FOIA?
Yes, I posted that same quote from Reid's letter to a Dark Journalist video a few weeks ago, noting it as a scintilla of evidence of UAP investigation. But it doesn't say as much explicitly, and in Greenewald's interview I posted he covers that and notes the fact that Reid is effectively pushing for continuation of AATIP and thus for a contract with Bigelow Aerospace, which is located in his state.Well, we have the statements of the former head of AATIP as well as of former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. That alone would be considered good evidence for most ordinary purposes.
In addition there is the e-mail Roger Glassel received from Pentagon spokeperson Maj. Harris which says:
From this website: http://www.blueblurrylines.com/2018/05/pentagon-confirmation-aatip-advanced.html
The only in-quotes portion of the excerpt you quoted ("far-term foreign advanced aerospace threats the United States") is from Reid's letter, as it states. That's the letter I also quoted a few weeks ago. The commentary from Major Harris is not corroborating evidence, it's an opinion offered in passing not backed up by documentation (I presume since none is provided). We want documents, not recent claims, from a time prior to the TTSA media blitz that independently confirm AATIP investigated UFOs.The above quote isn't from Reid's letter, it's from a Pentagon spokesperson.
Seems pretty explicit.
But that still doesn't necessarily mean much. For one thing it seems possible that some agencies respond with "no records" for documents that are FOIA exempt, due, for example, to being classified. I don't know that this is the case but I haven't seen any evidence that this isn't being done.
The commentary from Major Harris is not corroborating evidence, it's an opinion offered in passing not backed up by documentation
In your reply above, the statement attributed to Major Harris cites Reid's letter, quotes his letter and then in the same sentence closes the quote and continues describing AATIP apparently paraphrasing Reid's letter. In that paraphrased portion a number of UFO/ETish buzzwords appear ("anomalous events," "extreme maneuvers," "unique phenomenology") but that do not appear in Reid's letter.I don't think government spokespeople are supposed to provide personal opinions in official written communications with the public.
It seems to me that AATIP would by default be interested in credible UFO reports as possible sightings of advanced Russian or Chinese aerospace developments. So too, air-traffic control (ATC) at an airport would by default be interested in credible immediate evidence of a UFO in so far as it might pose a threat to air-traffic safety. But to say ATC constitutes a UFO-investigation service would be misleading. At best, with what we have available at the moment, AATIP's involvement with UFOs would appear to be, like that of ATC, by happenstance rather than by explicit directive.To me this is an official statement from the Department of Defense, regardless of what is or isn't in quotes. If you don't consider that to be evidence of anything, that's fine.
It seems to me that AATIP would by default be interested in credible UFO reports as possible sightings of advanced Russian or Chinese aerospace developments. So too, air-traffic control (ATC) at an airport would by default be interested in credible immediate evidence of a UFO in so far as it might pose a threat to air-traffic safety. But to say ATC constitutes a UFO-investigation service would be misleading. At best, with what we have available at the moment, AATIP's involvement with UFOs appears to be, like that of ATC, by happenstance rather than by explicit directive.
If the answer to this question is yes it is likely to have very far-reaching consequences regardless of who owns the craft.
extraordinary claims require at least semi-strong evidence. There is nothing to suggest (other than media types looking to make money) that there is anything extraordinary about these vid clips.I'm not sure how you can assert that with certainty.
There is nothing to suggest (other than media types looking to make money) that there is anything extraordinary about these vid clips.
I wouldnt myself say "definite". But if there is an earthly logical answer vs an extraterrestrial answer... i wish fairies were real too, so im not knocking your wanting to hold out the possibility.But it seems to me a stretch to conclude from that that the objects shown are definitely not anomalous unless they can actually be identified as something conventional.
That's really the only one i understand the long form nerd explanation. So i do believe it is a plane. But that's me.But in the case of the FLIR video, this has been identified by several witnesses as the video taken during one of tic-tac intercepts during the Nimitz incident and that case does have a considerable amount of apparently credible testimony behind it.
i wish fairies were real too, so im not knocking your wanting to hold out the possibility.
so the bird or balloon evidence/demonstrations presented in this thread is not convincing to you regarding the speed of the blob?Personally I have no preference one way or the other. My only interest is to ascertain what's true, to the extent possible, and I don't believe that excluding hypotheses a priori is the best way of achieving that goal.
so the bird or balloon evidence/demonstrations presented in this thread is not convincing to you regarding the speed of the blob?
So its a 'logical' leap from 'I can't explain it it, straight to 'therefore aliens'? Why not stop at 'hard to explain' first?But it seems to me a stretch to conclude from that that the objects shown are definitely not anomalous unless they can actually be identified as something conventional.
So its a 'logical' leap from 'I can't explain it it, straight to 'therefore aliens'? Why not stop at 'hard to explain' first?
The whole question of was AATIP even a UFO program is somewhat peripheral noise wrt the question of what the videos show. They could show real ET craft and AATIP was not a UFO program, or they could show terrestrial craft and AATIP was a UFO program. It's a question probably nobody anticipated when the TTSA media blitz hit. I assumed AATIP's mission was exactly what media reported. It's only after FOIA investigations that the possibility arose that, lo and behold, it may have no or at best only peripheral relation to UFOs.Sure, I don't think that point of view really even conflicts with what Elizondo has been saying.
|Thread starter||Related Articles||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Tom DeLonge's TTSA: Elizondo, Mellon, and Justice Depart||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||4|
|TTSA Exotic Material vs. Thermite Slag||UFOs and Aliens||3|
|TFTRH #22: Seth Shostak: SETI Senior Astronomer: ETs, UFO "Disclosure" Area 51||Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast||3|
|TTSA Videos Declassification Email Exchange Release under FOIA||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||45|
|Explained: "Beam of Light" in To The Stars Academy header images||UFOs and Aliens||0|
|UFO seen of feed form ISS (suspect reflection)||UFOs and Aliens||3|
|Curious-- how low can persistent contrails form?||Contrails and Chemtrails||25|
|Do contrails form around low level clouds? [Generally not]||Contrails and Chemtrails||124|
|UK Met Office claim contrail form below -57C||Contrails and Chemtrails||10|
|Aerodynamic and Exhaust Mediated Persistent Contrails - When do they Form?||Contrails and Chemtrails||52|
|"Unknown force changing cloud's shape" - form the front page of Reddit||Contrails and Chemtrails||3|
|WTC Hotspots how did they form and sustained for so long?||9/11||163|
|Contrails form clouds||Contrails and Chemtrails||7|