USS Omaha "Transmedium" Sphere Descending To the Sea

jackfrostvc

Active Member
I replied with this info a while back in this thread: for Saphire II it is 20km. I find it strange it is not able to find the range in said video..

Would fog or a little rain allow it to show on IR but stop the Laser ranging from returning?
 
Last edited:

gtoffo

Active Member
This is a good point and I think you are correct. The way the camera is angled you can't see any of the decimal points. I re-examined the video and noticed the barely visible caret just above and to the right of the "0" on the number line across the bottom, and it seems from the other videos to be an indicator for the azimuth you are facing. It basically doesn't move from where it is during the entire clip, which leads me to believe that the azimuth range we see is from 1.5 degrees to 4.2 degrees for the first clip, and 1.9 to 3.0 for the second clip. Here is an image of what the corrected azimuth lines would look like, extended out to 30+ KM. Good catch, definitely changes possible interpretations.

corrected.JPG

I wouldn't think it is unreliable, as the FLIR SAFIRE systems are used by the military for targeting and would heavily rely on accurate azimuth and elevation to help determine an accurate target location. The FLIR data sheet for the SAFIRE III states it can generate a Category 1 target location, which means it would be accurate within 6 meters. Barring any technical problems, it should be fairly accurate. I do have a possible explanation for the jumps: Since the camera is supposedly located on the LCS's mast, the side-to-side rocking of the ship in the sea might cause an exaggerated lateral displacement of the camera mast that causes the azimuth to appear to go backwards and forwards as the camera attempts to stay on target. This would also cause the fluctuations in the elevation display.


This is correct, "Wht" is white hot and "Blk" is black hot according to the manual.
Excellent work everyone.

So to recap:
- it is moving north against the prevailing wind.
We don't know range but:
- distance to horizon from the ship is about 10 miles / 17km
- Saphire II laser range finder max range is 20km while Saphire III LRF Max. range is 25 km +/-5 m (but we get no laser return)

We can calculate given the apparent FOV an approximate size and speed given distance assumptions.

Obviously the further we are the faster the speed, the larger the dimension.

We can also go the other way around based on Jeremy Corbell's claims (https://www.extraordinarybeliefs.com/news4/navy-filmed-spherical-ufos):
  • Minimum 6ft in diameter - solid mass.
  • Varying speeds from 40 kts - 138 kts (46 mph - 158 mph).
Supposedly Corbell's claims are based on radar returns of the object.
 
Last edited:

Oklahomeless

New Member
It thought a balloon was ruled out on account of the strong wind . Maybe I remember incorrectly, but I thought the movement of the object didn't correlate with a balloon in strong wind
I don’t know about this. Without being confident in wind direction and without accurate range distance, it’s hard to say exactly how this blob should appear were it a balloon. I’ve seen some people correlate apparent wave movement to wind direction but I think this could be an incorrect assumption.
The blob is definitely moving transverse to the ship but it’s not clear if it’s also moving normal to line of sight without dynamic range data. The only movement that’s clear to me is a loss of altitude, which could be consistent with a balloon. It could also be going over the horizon but that seems more unlikely to me at the moment.
 

Oklahomeless

New Member
Would fog or a little rain allow it to show on IR but stop the Laser ranging from returning?
Lots of conditions will affect the LRF. It’s effectiveness can be impacted by geometry, opacity, and reflectivity of the target. I’m sure it could be scattered and refracted by atmospheric conditions. I was also considering whether perhaps mist at low altitudes over the sea would not be conducive to LRF performance.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
We don't know range but:
- distance to horizon from the ship is about 10 miles / 17km
- Saphire II max range is 20km while Saphire III Max. range 25 km +/-5 m (but we get no laser return)
I think the stated range for the system of 25 km +/- 5 km relates only to the laser range-finder. At least, that's where the figure appears in the SAFIRE III Datasheet. The lack of a laser return might give us a minimum distance of 25 km for the object, assuming the range finder was working. It doesn't tell us anything about the maximum range at which heat sources can be seen, if there is such maximum. Presumably if you point the thing at the sun you will still see something on the screen.
 

Ravi

Active Member
Lots of conditions will affect the LRF. It’s effectiveness can be impacted by geometry, opacity, and reflectivity of the target. I’m sure it could be scattered and refracted by atmospheric conditions. I was also considering whether perhaps mist at low altitudes over the sea would not be conducive to LRF performance.
Agreed, it is for sure not helping if it rains or other obstructing things occur.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
I think the stated range for the system of 25 km +/- 5 km relates only to the laser range-finder. At least, that's where the figure appears in the SAFIRE III Datasheet. The lack of a laser return might give us a minimum distance of 25 km for the object, assuming the range finder was working. It doesn't tell us anything about the maximum range at which heat sources can be seen, if there is such maximum. Presumably if you point the thing at the sun you will still see something on the screen.
Absolutely I've corrected the comment above as I forgot to specify laser.

I think it could give us a minimum range of at least 15 km (20-5km for SAPPHIRE II) if this was a balloon or similar. Below that I would assume the laser would have worked.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
I'd like to pursue the possibility that the object is just a commercial plane going over the horizon. I don't really have the technical knowledge to do this, but I hope others will take it further.
I assume the object is a commercial airliner (scheduled or private) in level flight (i.e. following the curvature of the earth) at an altitude of about 33,000 feet, at a speed between 550 and 600 mph, in a direction almost directly away from the camera. The viewpoint of the camera is between 100 and 150 feet above sea level. (Within this range the exact height is not critical. The distance of the object is more important.)
As discussed at #105 above, I think the plane would have to be very far distant from the USS Omaha to go below the horizon: with standard refraction, about 250 miles; with less than standard refraction, a bit closer. This must seem ridiculously far, but I haven't seen anything to rule it out definitely. The issue is whether the heat of the plane's engines and exhaust would still register on the IR detector, even as a 'blob', at that distance.
There is also a question whether a plane 'going below the horizon' is consistent with what is seen in the video. I take it that the time period covered in the video is about 7 minutes. If the plane is flying at, say, 575 mph, it would cover about 67 miles in that time. If it is 250 miles away when it goes below the horizon, it would be about 180 miles away when it is first seen on the video. I take it that an approximate estimate for the amount of 'downward' movement, as viewed from the Omaha, can be obtained by subtracting the 'hidden' figure for the closer distance from the figure for the longer distance. For some relevant distances, the Metabunk calculator gives a 'hidden' of 3.01 miles at 180 miles, 3.77 miles at 200 miles, 5.56 miles at 240 miles, and 6.06 miles at 250 miles (all figures assuming standard refraction and a viewing height of 100 feet). That gives an estimate of the apparent downward motion of about 3 miles. At a distance of 200 miles a difference in angular elevation of 1 degree would be (200 x 2Pi)/360 = approx. 3.49 miles. A 'drop' of 3 miles would therefore be a bit less than 1 degree. In the video the apparent drop of the object is obviously much more than that, but of course it is viewed with a strong 'zoom', which would magnify the angular size of the drop. The specifications for SAFIRE III state that the field of view of the thermal imager ranges from 25 degrees down to 0.35 degrees. An overall drop of 3 miles, or an angular drop of 1 degree, is therefore not obviously inconsistent with the video. A more detailed analysis would be needed to say whether the drop seen in the last 20 seconds or so is also possible. From the geometry, one would expect the rate of apparent downward motion to increase towards the end.
There remains the very big issue whether the plane would be detectable at all at these distances.
 

Alphadunk

Member
I'd like to pursue the possibility that the object is just a commercial plane going over the horizon. I don't really have the technical knowledge to do this, but I hope others will take it further.

Earlier in the thread Mick checked flight logs for the area during the time and nothing really fits with that hypothesis.
 

commedieu

New Member
Is there really any clear correlation between this video and the UAV buzzing the ships? The ‘pyramid’ video was also suggested as being one of these drones but it’s pretty apparent that’s not necessarily the case. That could have been any number of things and so can this one. I know the media is implying this, but is there any primary source claiming the objects are all from the same source?
There doesn’t seem to be much doubt that there were mystery drones harassing the ships. I’m sure this caused the fleet to be alert to, and take a close look at, anything in the vicinity over this period. There’s all kinds of stuff in the skies these days and not all of it is immediately identifiable. This one may not be a weather balloon but the reason for that isn’t going to be because there are also drones.
Its prudent to consider all options according to the information available. Though, like you said, there’s likely a lot more existing information not available to us. I’m honestly not yet even convinced the Navy doesn’t have a decent guess what these videos are, even if they’re genuinely stumped on the origin of the drones. The only thing that suggests they might not are vague canned responses from Public Relations saying ‘yeah, we took this video and it’s included in ongoing examinations’.
Not everything sent to the UAPTF is going to be something incredible. I’m aware of what people like Elizondo and Mellon are saying but they’re not acting in an official government capacity, that we know of.

Shouldn't YOU know? I kid I kid..(your screen name)

The correlation is the dates / leaks / navy verification. It was 6 ships iirc in the initial report off the coast of California, and the Omaha was an additional addition based on Mystery Wire reporting.

"The video was recorded inside the Omaha’s command center just before 11 p.m. on July 15, 2019. The image on the screen shows a six-foot in diameter sphere that traveled alongside the Omaha for about an hour."

https://www.mysterywire.com/ufo/pic...lying-objects-moving-above-u-s-navy-warships/

The events for the whole story was july 14th - 15th.

I don't think we can extract the video from the context/snoopie teams/and naval investigation to just say its a one off balloon. HOWEVER, the balloon theory in combination with drones, and a potential adversary is a compelling argument being made.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...he-u-s-and-the-pentagon-acts-like-theyre-ufos

From the same source thats been very thorough with all of this information. It is well worth a read, and might be more alarming than any of the fringe ideas. A adversary submarine, openly testing the US defense systems unopposed. This concept is a combination of all things, but 1 explanation doesn't cover the seeming gamut. "In November 2019, we went on to lay out how submarines can launch their own aerial drones and have been able to so for far longer than most realize."

"
Nearly two years ago, I wrote a widely circulated piece that addressed my thoughts on the Pentagon's sudden willingness to talk about UFOs and its potential implications. I went through the possibilities as I saw them, but above all else, it was clear that this wasn't some over-hyped myth. Something strange was indeed going on.

Soon after, we were the first to connect key technologies that had emerged around the time that sightings of certain types of mysterious UAPs began to accelerate amongst military personnel—in particular, Navy fighter pilots. This was largely based around new air defense data-fusion and networking capabilities being installed on Navy warships and aircraft, as well as the proliferation of Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars on Navy fighters and airborne early warning and control planes. We also noted that the most remarkable appearances of these objects seemed to correlate with major Navy exercises where these advances in air defense capabilities were being fully integrated across a Carrier Strike Group. In other words, it seemed that these mysterious craft had a very keen interest in America's latest and greatest operational counter-air capabilities."


The Navy is in a tough spot. Either they know what these are, and haven't been able to really, do anything about these infringements. So much so that congress is demanding answers in a detailed report. OR, they do not know where they are coming from, are infringing on US airspace, and again, they aren't even capable of identifying these. But as the above article points out, this is really the Air Forces job, however the Navy actually has the newest technology when it comes to identifying drones. Which has a correlation with these encounters sightings.


Fravor/TicTac allegedly saw the UFO's coming from a "747" sized wake/disturbance in the water.


"David Fravor first came forward in a bombshell New York Times article in December 2017, describing how his squadron witnessed a 747-sized object just under the surface of the water during training exercises in the Pacific Ocean, 160km off the coast of San Diego."


https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/wh...p-from-the-depths/4OHNAJ7J6GYEE5P6XMLCTNOTAQ/

I'm sure that 'size' is debatable as far as eyeballing something under a refractive surface from an f18. But this once again highlights a problem with not only identifying drones, but also, submarines off the coast of a military target like California.
 
Last edited:

Oklahomeless

New Member
"The video was recorded inside the Omaha’s command center just before 11 p.m. on July 15, 2019. The image on the screen shows a six-foot in diameter sphere that traveled alongside the Omaha for about an hour."

https://www.mysterywire.com/ufo/pic...lying-objects-moving-above-u-s-navy-warships/

The events for the whole story was july 14th - 15th.
Thanks for the links.

[The dates here are discrepant, though, between the video and the drone reports. The video in question occurred on the 16th. It seems there were definitely drones in the area but none of the documentation or SNOOPIE logs correlate to this particular sighting. Even looking through the emails released through FOAI it looks like they were sent well after this occurrence but only ask explicitly about drone activity for the previous days.]
EDIT: This has been cleared up below.

Unfortunately with this video what we see is what we get, so far. Unless I’m missing something, which is possible. But the only extra info I’ve seen are quotes from Corbell, who has been injecting all kinds of incredible statements without sources into the Mystery Wire articles. Other media then pick those quotes up and imply they’re credible. Mystery Wire claims they were doing figure-8’s, sharp 90-turns, and that “The Navy called it a trans-medium vehicle.” I suppose the implication is that this comes from whomever is leaking the videos from the UAPTF presentation? I dunno.

To be clear, I’m not saying I think it’s a balloon or that it’s not a drone. I’m only saying the video is very ambiguous and that the waters may be intentionally muddied by some of the reporting. At this point I’m only taking primary sources and documents into consideration. I do think The Drive and Black Vault have been doing a good job so far, though.
 
Last edited:

commedieu

New Member
Thanks for the links.

[The dates here are discrepant, though, between the video and the drone reports. The video in question occurred on the 16th. It seems there were definitely drones in the area but none of the documentation or SNOOPIE logs correlate to this particular sighting. Even looking through the emails released through FOAI it looks like they were sent well after this occurrence but only ask explicitly about drone activity for the previous days.]
EDIT: This has been cleared up below.

Unfortunately with this video what we see is what we get, so far. Unless I’m missing something, which is possible. But the only extra info I’ve seen are quotes from Corbell, who has been injecting all kinds of incredible statements without sources into the Mystery Wire articles. Other media then pick those quotes up and imply they’re credible. Mystery Wire claims they were doing figure-8’s, sharp 90-turns, and that “The Navy called it a trans-medium vehicle.” I suppose the implication is that this comes from whomever is leaking the videos from the UAPTF presentation? I dunno.

To be clear, I’m not saying I think it’s a balloon or that it’s not a drone. I’m only saying the video is very ambiguous and that the waters may be intentionally muddied by some of the reporting. At this point I’m only taking primary sources and documents into consideration. I do think The Drive and Black Vault have been doing a good job so far, though.

Yeah, the investigation happened days later after the swarm.

Corbell rubs me as a used snake oil salseman. He cheapens the entire thing. I wish it was Knapp by himself. Ill never understand the pull corbell has. Any time theres any interview with someone you'd like to hear from, he blowhards over the person. However, they are 'delivering' as much as anyone has in a field that used to just be downplayed as swamp-gas no matter what. Yes, I agree that the flow of information is some what scattershot.

I was thrown off by the date in the op for the Omaha as the 15th, my mistake. I still do think its all relative to the same drone swarm though, unless the Omaha is just posting some random video. I can't wait for clarification from that congressional deadline. Im not expecting much. But this is the most exciting black projects / ufos have been for quite some time. I remember the ufo reports for the stealth bomber sort of leading up to the same reveal.

I'm in the camp that the Navy is aware that this isn't a weather balloon, that a *single* balloon wouldn't create this much confusion (multiple drones reported) and apparently that is also the concern of some in congress. Its not some appeal to authority either, but just that with all the tax money we spend on sensors, they better be able to get non-potato quality video.
 

lougiants

New Member
I'm sorry, I think this is much ado about ---- well, I think these are balloons. A couple of years ago The Drive reported on some possible culprits of the sightings in the Atlantic called a "cube inside a sphere" as a simple radar reflector...and named the patent issued from back in the 40's.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...are-encountering-be-airborne-radar-reflectors

Also more note worthy was the discovery of U.S. Patent #7341224B1 :
Which was filed in 2004 and awarded in 2008, describes a Miniature Robot Surveillance Balloon that has thrusters to control its flight path and can carry an electrical-powered payload aloft.

In general, the balloon system may be encouraged to travel in the vertical direction by releasing gas from the bag to descend and by either injecting gas from the compressed gas cylinder and/or jettisoning weight to ascend. The balloon system may optionally include some form of directional thrusters to allow it to travel in a specific horizontal direction and/or travel in a vertical direction at a rate faster than the effects of lift and weight would allow. Thrusters may be provided by solid rocket propellant, or alternately by miniature engines that burn hydrogen gas from the bag or from the gas cylinder.

A balloon concept that was far more advanced—one that could be able to be actively controlled and make abrupt maneuvers.

I would encourage anyone who has not read that piece to do so... along with the article today.

What We Know About The High-Altitude Balloons Recently Lingering Off America's Coastlines

The military has been testing high-altitude balloons that are steerable and can remain aloft for long periods while carrying cutting-edge payloads.


https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...-lingering-off-the-coasts-of-the-u-s-recently

Now, these advanced balloons could have some type of updated power source/propulsion, can maneuver as well as Surveillance/Electronic warfare capabilities that could make this "craft" seem to be "other worldly".


Who is messing with the Navy? Well, could be:
Its actually our own military checking to see how, when and distance that they are being identified from our own ships in the real world.​
Could be that its a chance encounter cause these things are being tested all the time.​
Maybe, China and/or Russia,- while behind on fighter/stealth performance, aviation technology and manufacturing capabilities have produced a hell of an advanced balloon like craft, that is getting the mother lode of data by just launching these from a sub, cargo ship or maybe dropping from some cargo plane some 250 miles away that makes it way to our west coast.​
Then drops in the water.​
Then Jeremy Corbell gets hold of the video and low and behold we have Trans Medium craft and so on.​
 
Last edited:

gtoffo

Active Member
Who is messing with the Navy? Well, could be:
Its actually our own military checking to see how, when and distance that they are being identified from our own ships in the real world.​
Could be that its a chance encounter cause these things are being tested all the time.​
Maybe, China and/or Russia,- while behind on fighter/stealth performance, aviation technology and manufacturing capabilities have produced a hell of an advanced balloon like craft, that is getting the mother lode of data by just launching these from a sub, cargo ship or maybe dropping from some cargo plane some 250 miles away that makes it way to our west coast.​
Then drops in the water.​
Then Jeremy Corbell gets hold of the video and low and behold we have Trans Medium craft and so on.​
You realise what an extraordinarily epic fail it would be if the Pentagon has given briefings to congress saying it wasn't them and then it ended up they were filming themselves after all those years and all this mess?

Filming another branch/black project is the most common and the first option the Pentagon will have investigated and excluded.

After all this time and given the high level statements (Pentagon statements, Directors of national intelligence, congress, senators) this option must have been thoroughly investigated and excluded.

It isn't a viable option anymore. This is not the US military.

A balloon concept that was far more advanced—one that could be able to be actively controlled and make abrupt maneuvers.
Not a balloon then :) balloons are just filled with air. They don't manoeuvre. That would be a dirigible or airship.
 

stemplusc

New Member
Another good tool to possibly use when debunking videos is the "Google APRS".
I have launched over 30 weather balloons (or Near Space Balloons) with students in 5th through University.

We install an APRS transmitter in the balloon for tracking purpose. Typically amatuer weather balloons will have an APRS transmitter attached to it, and it will appear in Google APRS ...
Google APRS

Here is what just one of our weather balloon tracks looked like .... the disappointing thing about the site, is the data is wiped after like 30 or 60 days....

track of Flygt Hoyt.png
 

JMartJr

Active Member
Filming another branch/black project is the most common and the first option the Pentagon will have investigated and excluded.

After all this time and given the high level statements (Pentagon statements, Directors of national intelligence, congress, senators) this option must have been thoroughly investigated and excluded.
Or investigated and confirmed internally but they are not going to talk about that when discussing the leaked videos? That would seem equally possible.
Not a balloon then :) balloons are just filled with air. They don't manoeuvre. That would be a dirigible or airship.
Or still a balloon, but towed by something else.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Earlier in the thread Mick checked flight logs for the area during the time and nothing really fits with that hypothesis.
I'm not sure that can be said with confidence. There was still a bit of traffic around, and it's not 100% clear where the object is.
 

martin bradshaw

New Member
Looks like its gone over the horizon to me, and on the zoomed in splash down bit, when it reappears its slightly higher which is probably the ship rocking slightly - could it be the spaceX dragon capsule parachuting down into the sea, hot from re-entry, they callout spashdown for those too
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
Looks like its gone over the horizon to me, and on the zoomed in splash down bit, when it reappears its slightly higher which is probably the ship rocking slightly - could it be the spaceX dragon capsule parachuting down into the sea, hot from re-entry.
We have the date/time and location. Was a Dragon capsule splashing down there at that time and date? What did your searches tell you?
 

lougiants

New Member
Hi gtoffo
Judging by that Patent back in 2004, it could very well be an advanced balloon.
The Patent states.

Miniature Robot Surveillance Balloon that has thrusters to control its flight path and can carry an electrical-powered payload aloft.

A miniature surveillance balloon system is described that can be used in military and public safety situations for real-time observations. They are low-cost and expendable, and typically are deployed in clusters. Balloons may act individually or alternately clusters may act robotically (in unison) without command input at times. Balloon systems may be deployed by dropping from aircraft or by some form of artillery or rocket launch mechanism.
In some optional embodiments, balloons may have thruster mechanisms to facilitate lateral movement. Balloons may also be used individually or in clusters as a weapons system.
In general, the balloon system may be encouraged to travel in the vertical direction by releasing gas from the bag to descend and by either injecting gas from the compressed gas cylinder and/or jettisoning weight to ascend. The balloon system may optionally include some form of directional thrusters to allow it to travel in a specific horizontal direction and/or travel in a vertical direction at a rate faster than the effects of lift and weight would allow. Thrusters may be provided by solid rocket propellant, or alternately by miniature engines that burn hydrogen gas from the bag or from the gas cylinder.

The patent for the swarming balloons goes on to describe its fuel cell, data-link, and other components that are quite interesting.


This was in 2004, 16 years ago.

The US Military may in fact admit, once this report comes out in June, that some of these sightings are in fact advanced Recon balloons.

As I stated, we have no idea if the Chinese or Russians have in fact developed a more advanced balloon... cause well, its a cheaper option to gather intelligence.


You mentioned:
Not a balloon then :) balloons are just filled with air. They don't manoeuvre. That would be a dirigible or airship.

I would have to respectfully disagree, A Sopwith Camel is still a plane, even though its not an F15,

These balloons DO maneuver, now whether that is what the Omaha was tracking, who knows...but it sure seems like it to me.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
The US Military may in fact admit, once this report comes out in June, that some of these sightings are in fact advanced Recon balloons.
There have been confidential reports to congress. If they knew they would have told congress. But congressmen such as Rubio are saying that the military has no idea what they are.

So they don't know what it is... and it ain't the US military. Or congress would have been informed and everything would have stopped there.

You mentioned:
Not a balloon then :) balloons are just filled with air. They don't manoeuvre. That would be a dirigible or airship.

I would have to respectfully disagree, A Sopwith Camel is still a plane, even though its not an F15,

These balloons DO maneuver, now whether that is what the Omaha was tracking, who knows...but it sure seems like it to me.
I was just joking :) but technically balloons are not manoeuvrable. They just float. While dirigibles/airships etc. are used to describe floting stuff that can move.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This thread is getting a bit speculative. Please let's try stay on the topic of the Omaha Sphere.
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
Exactly. Not a sphere. It is very possibly a (the) Cocoyoc Object with arms (used for landing) retracted. Hopefully clearer pictures will emerge.
Without knowing the actual values in the pixels we have no idea what the shape is. We can’t know how many pixels are saturated or know how much image compression affects the edges. This is just a shapeless blob.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
I'm not sure that can be said with confidence. There was still a bit of traffic around, and it's not 100% clear where the object is.
We have all the necessary data to precisely identify where the object was don't we?

Isn't this post accurate? https://www.metabunk.org/threads/us...escending-to-the-sea.11711/page-3#post-248833

We have date and location. I don't have access to the tools you normally use but was there any airliner along those lines at the time (even very far away)?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
2021-05-21_07-52-22.jpg

What's the month here? Supposed it's July, so 7 or 07, but I'm not seeing any 7 there. The month is conveniently obscured. What if it were a different month? 07 does not seem to fit, but nothing else does either.
2021-05-21_08-05-04.jpg


The obscuration is weird - it looks like it's part of the actual image on screen. But there's no reason a real-time display would obscure part of the info on screen. Was it added to the video later, but before it was filmed off a monitor?
 
I think that's 'Jul', the two stems of the 'u' bleeding into the 'J' and 'l', respectively, and the lower part cut off from the screen. Plus I haven't seen a video yet in which the system ever shows the month as a number, it's always a three-letter abbreviation.
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
I think that's 'Jul', the two stems of the 'u' bleeding into the 'J' and 'l', respectively, and the lower part cut off from the screen. Plus I haven't seen a video yet in which the system ever shows the month as a number, it's always a three-letter abbreviation.
This makes sense especially with the day number first. At least in America (I know it’s different in Europe) it’d be the month-day-year if all numbers: 7-16-2019. But if putting the day first then you’d use the letters for the month: 16-Jul-2019. Even though there is no 16th month, using the European convention, I.e., 16-7-2019, would be confusing for Americans.
 

Festivus

New Member
Most of the US military uses DD MMM YY format for dates. So it's almost certainly 16-Jul-2019. Plus, the footage I linked before from other SAFIRE feeds has the DD MMM YYYY format.
 

BlueGlass

New Member
Here's my question: is there any possible way someone can verify what other details are available about these videos? I'd like to double check when Mr Corbell is the only source of information and makes a claim like "transmedium craft" being considered by the US military.

I think these videos are unclassified and acquired by FOIA so I am guessing another FOIA would be the best we could achieve.
 

relm1

New Member
Hi everyone, I'm brand new here and live in the area this occurred. I'm a Coast Guard Auxiliary certified skipper and licensed pilot and frequently in the waters around Santa Monica Bay (around Catalina). A few things - we frequently have strange drone sightings including in the approach path of LAX. The drones are usually seen by landing planes at about 1,000 feet in approach path but not easily traced. In addition, there are frequent military vessels and tests. While boating, we frequently hear navy airmen give a warning to stay clear of military test area to a boater. I'll also add a lot of areas in CA don't allow drones leaving waters a great place to use drones. When I found this event from someone sending it to me, my cousin and I were actually in the process of planing a trip to search for whales using his drone. Though he has to maintain visual sight of it, it has a range that far exceeds what he can see - up to 20 miles from the boat. So his plan was to attach an LED light that is very bright and aids in seeing it from far away. These lights are durable (I have two that I use for underwater video dropping them down to 100 feet), cheap ($16 on amazon) and last over an hour. My initial thought is this is either a flare with a parachute or drone with hot battery, possibly launched from a boat.

Catalina is about 20 miles from the shore. San Clemente is about 20 miles further out and this area seems to be 20 miles past that thereabouts. It is an area with lots of boat activity including industrial ships, pleasure boaters mooring at Catalina, etc., even small sail boats going from San Diego/Los Angeles to Hawaii.
 
Last edited:

Cassi O

Member
This thread is getting a bit speculative. Please let's try stay on the topic of the Omaha Sphere.
Forgive me for being a bit lazy and not reading through this entire thread to see if this has been mentioned before. To me it's obvious, the IR tracking tech. now has the ability to follow a commercial airliner until it disappears below the horizon. In fact I took a few minutes to model it on Walter Bislin's advanced earth curve calculator.

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/inde...056805-1~0.0065-12-11012.5179-114.960376-81-9

Target is at 35,000 ft, starting at a distance of 150 miles and at 25 mile intervals out to 300 miles where it's below the horizon with standard refraction.

This morning was another yell at the TV moment, because ABS's 'This Week' was teasing us with the what I consider now debunked 'UFO' videos yet again.
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
Given the specificity of date/time/location and direction of view, if it were a commercial airliner we'd be able to find it on historical FR24 tracks. Like was done for the Chilean video.

I don't have that level of access though. Not sure if Mick has looked.

Also what's your speed calculation for it given the 6 or so minutes it takes to vanish? 150 miles in 6-7 minutes is around 1300/1100kts which is faster than a commercial airliner, it's Concorde speeds.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
H CLAIM: USS Omaha videos were taken on the ship's "Combat Information Center" by "VIPER team" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 5
A USS Omaha UFO / UAP Radar Video UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 236
LorentzHall 'Transmedium Sphere' Photos (Jeremy Corbell) UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 7
Mick West 'Fast Movers' and 'Transmedium' Vehicles UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 10
Mick West Sphere, Acorn, Metallic Blimp - Three iPhone Photos From an F-18 via Mystery Wire UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 164
Mick West San Diego Silver Sphere Videoed By Rick Ybarra, 2014 [Probably a Ballon Model] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 24
S Helioviewer-Sphere near sun: moves towards sun unlike Coronal prominence cavity UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
Mick West Cube in a Sphere UFO's Seen by Navy pilots. Radar Targets? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 17
Mick West "Golden Orb" Daytime Reflective Sphere UFOs in Photos UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 42
Rory Calculator for viewing angles Tools for Investigating and Debunking 12
Z.W. Wolf Claim: The Moon's Shadow During The Solar Eclipse Disproves Sphere Earth Flat Earth 97
Mick West How to Verify that the Sun is a Distant Sphere, with Binoculars & Sunspots Flat Earth 24
N Please help me to debunk this topic: stranges sphere outside of the ISS. General Discussion 18
DarkStar Earth curvature: Differences with Sphere/Ellipsoid/Geoid models for Visibility etc Flat Earth 8
Bass In Your Face Curvature Experiment showing relation between x-axis and z-axis Flat Earth 15
Mick West Explained: Giant Black Sphere Hovering Near the Sun [Coronal Prominence Cavity] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 69

Related Articles

Top