Would recording the screens inside the CIC/ICC happen often enough to warrant including that as a feature though? Most Navy members who have commented on the video have remarked on how unusual it would be to have a phone out recording anything inside that area. I think the "target not identified" idea makes a little more sense given the context.
Displaying "target not identified" would make more sense than "UNCLASSIFIED" in green.
Jeremy Corbell stressed that the video wasn't illegally recorded on a cell phone, but that a "VIPER team" was invited to record it, and it's unclassified.
Would recording the screens inside the CIC/ICC happen often enough to warrant including that as a feature though? Most Navy members who have commented on the video have remarked on how unusual it would be to have a phone out recording anything inside that area. I think the "target not identified" idea makes a little more sense given the context.
Yeah.. we're definitely into the realm of speculation at this point. It's hard to move much further on this whole issue without more data. Apparently Corbell is supposed to be releasing more video soon.
Displaying "target not identified" would make more sense than "UNCLASSIFIED" in green.
Jeremy Corbell stressed that the video wasn't illegally recorded on a cell phone, but that a "VIPER team" was invited to record it, and it's unclassified.
Please bear with me with the following slightly longer explanation on classified military information and the Drone Testing Hypothesis (heretofore "DTH"):
In most modern armed forces, any testing of a new capability is classified for obvious reasons: To ensure a military advantage over the enemy. A capability of a given weapon system is not only defined by its technical specifications but also its psychosocial impact, including its ability to surprise and confound the enemy. These two facts add credence to the hypothesis of drone testing in and around a known UAS base in San Clemente, unbeknownst to the rank-and-file Navy staff participating in the test. The more strategically important the capability under development, the higher its classification level and security clearance within the armed forces. Rank-and-file military personnel, as a rule, have very limited access to highly classified information.
Furthermore, to ensure a successful test of, say, a prototype reconnaissance drone, rank-and-file Navy staff participating in a broader exercise within which such a test is conducted, would be deliberately kept in the dark on the drone test. Navy radar readings of these UAV by an older radar could well be determined unclassified, and be submitted to the UAP Task Force for further analysis as potential aerial threats yet to be identified.
Under the DTH, (1) the confusion generated amid Navy crew, (2) leaks of unclassified Navy footage and (3) the resulting rampant public speculation on seemingly other-worldly technology, would constitute some of the many results of the drone test -- some of them foreseeable and deliberate (surprise amongst Navy crew) and others unintended (leaks and the consequent UFO speculation amongst the general public).
Intentional or not, leaks of unclassified Navy videos leading to vibrant public speculation do not necessarily risk uncovering the new capabilities being tested, but in fact serve to produce the very opposite effect. They help to create a smokescreen which the military may well, after the fact, take advantage of. What better proxy for a military vessel manufactured by a particular national entity than 'a possible alien craft'.
Even the Navy's own UAP Task Force confirming publicly the inconclusiveness of the Navy sightings contributes to a helpful smokescreen around any prototype military capability. Withholding classified drone test information from the majority of the UAP Task Force would likely be sensed by the 'believers' within the Task Force. Sensing that key information is being withheld while their Alien Technology Hypothesis (ATH) is not taken seriously, would frustrate a believer. Hence the perception of an unfair 'dismissiveness' or 'coverup' by a former Task Force member. This, in turn, would lead to leaks and 'resignations' by believing Task Force members who, in their own mind, are simply promoting open and honest inquiry into matters of planetary concern.
From the military perspective, however, letting ATH-believers in the Task Force know about classified drone tests would risk leaking highly classified information on military capabilities to the public.
In terms of the scientific plausibility of competing hypotheses, the (1) proximity of the USS Omaha sightings to the San Clemente UAS base and (2) USS Omaha radar readings that are well within the physical parameters of known UAS technology, adds significant weight to the DTH as compared to every other hypothesis.
With the 3 Navy F/18 videos our initial analysis was to see if the claims made by TTSA etc were factual i.e. we had some concrete claims to address.
What this current crop of videos lacks in comparison that it's seemingly based on the conceit "hey the Pentagon already say UFOs were real, so here's some more military videos of crazy stuff." tied to some sort of drone event that I am unclear as to what the extra-terrestrial claims actually are?
As a result the analysis is a bit all over the place as rather than addressing claims we are just sort of trying to put together what the video shows and if any of it seems as if it actually shows anything weird.
This is all correct. There is a cut at 31s, which begins the part of the video where they are talking about something going 138 kn. It's clearly taken at a different time from the previous cut. Target 781 is still selected but the data pane on the right hand side of the screen has been set to a different tab so its data isn't visible. I think this is all covered by my analysis a few posts up where we infer the speed of the targets by measuring them against target 781's known speed. The track you're referring to is the one I think they are talking about, but it apparent speed it 68 knots.
The vector line displays a predicted position in the time specified by the vector time which is changeable.
I.e. if you set it to 10 minutes the line extends to a predicted path if the object keeps it's current heading and speed for 10 minutes, this is displayed in the top right of the display unfortunately it is too blurry to read. Also the vector mode can be set to relative or true, it is also too blurry to read.
The vector line length (369px) seems to extend to the reach of the RADAR display if the vector time for the predicted path is too great a time period for it to fit on the scope, it's possible that it continues off the scope i.e. it could be faster than your calculation because the screen can't show the full vector path.
You might be able to calibrate the vector time variable from the approx. speed of the Swan Ace at that time period.
As a result the analysis is a bit all over the place as rather than addressing claims we are just sort of trying to put together what the video shows and if any of it seems as if it actually shows anything weird.
I had this realisation today. What is the claim being made by the publication of this video?
The video shows nothing extraordinary. It's a video of a radar showing several surface targets. Are those targets moving abnormally fast? Not really - as best we can tell. Are they unexpected? Not really - we've known about the drone reports for a while. Are they transmedium? Not really - we can't really tell anything about them from an ARPA display. Is there anything inherently unusual about them? Yes.
They are unusual because we are being told they are unusual.
...it's a war of ideas. People that try to dismiss the gravity of what's going on by labelling things as prosaic with less information than those who have more information than them, beware. Debunkers beware.
The video doesn't show anything new to advance the case for investigation into the Roosevelt encounters of July 14/15. Based on what was already known, I think we'd all like to find out what happened. What it does advance is an idea. It hints that there is information not being released. It's a tool in the war of ideas to push back against the "debunkers" by implying there is something unusual going on. Corbell's statement directly implies that we shouldn't label things as prosaic based on the information we have, we should label them as special based on information we don't have. Trust the people telling us it's unusual.
As a result the analysis is a bit all over the place as rather than addressing claims we are just sort of trying to put together what the video shows and if any of it seems as if it actually shows anything weird.
Yes that makes sense. I guess what we're doing is analyzing every shred of data to produce a reference model for later when more information appears. Like walking into a crime scene and photographing everything because you don't know what's going to be relevant later. I'm still chugging away on a bunch of the position stuff and have a few more ideas. One interesting avenue of pursuit will be to plot the positions of all the US military ships for the entire event using AIS or best guess based on context and see whether it's likely that other civilian ships in the area should have picked up the contacts on their radar. This can be done programmatically and also happens to be an intensely enjoyable pursuit
I agree with the approach and I too enjoy the challenge of analysis and learning about the systems involved, however we should remind ourselves that because the default claim has now shifted our findings can be disingenuously believed to become the claims and this can be used to discredit debunks if an error is made.
I had this realisation today. What is the claim being made by the publication of this video?
The video shows nothing extraordinary. It's a video of a radar showing several surface targets. Are those targets moving abnormally fast? Not really - as best we can tell. Are they unexpected? Not really - we've known about the drone reports for a while. Are they transmedium? Not really - we can't really tell anything about them from an ARPA display. Is there anything inherently unusual about them? Yes.
They are unusual because we are being told they are unusual.
Today, Corbell released a video on Twitter that I think says more than he intends...
Yes, I'm noticing something similar as I dive into the subject.
There's a conflation of evidence from different accounts, such that providing "radar data" from 2019 somehow will also count as evidence to corroborate David Fravors' 2004 account and the 2015 accounts from the east coast.
If you watch Corbell's video from Twitter, at the ~0:07 mark, he shows the new Omaha radar footage and overlays the "there's a whole fleet of them, look on the AESA." voiceover. In this presentation, the 2019 radar from off the CA coast is now proving the 2015 account from off the VA coast.
Imagine a technology that can do 600-700 G forces, that can fly at 13,000 mph, that can evade radar, and that can fly through air, and water, and possibly space. And, oh by the way, has no obvious signs of propulsion, no wings, no control surfaces, and yet still can defy the natural effects of earth’s gravity.
So far, we've seen nothing definitive to demonstrate any of this (most of it seems to be based on the Fravor eyewitness account). Yet it is the working model being discussed seamlessly with videos like Gimbal, Gofast & FLIR1.
Every strand of yarn gets indiscriminately rolled into the same growing ball that we are being told is unusual. It's left to more serious and careful people to untangle it and examine the merits of each strand.
UFO's of drones are so common here in LA. They are in the news every few weeks like this one which already happened twice this year on approach to LAX.
Right. And the USS KIDD, which also reported encounters, was 90 nautical miles away when things got exciting. My guess is also that this was a drone exercise. Send a bunch of drones out to harass a bunch of ships in the middle of an exercise, maybe without telling them ahead of time-- what better way to get a real-world assessment of the readiness of the fleet to deal with such threats?
I don't think it was an intentional drone harassment but just an example of different departments not always in the know of what the other was doing type of thing.
I had this realisation today. What is the claim being made by the publication of this video?
The video shows nothing extraordinary. It's a video of a radar showing several surface targets. Are those targets moving abnormally fast? Not really - as best we can tell. Are they unexpected? Not really - we've known about the drone reports for a while. Are they transmedium? Not really - we can't really tell anything about them from an ARPA display. Is there anything inherently unusual about them? Yes.
They are unusual because we are being told they are unusual.
Corbell said that it's extraordinary that some objects disappear from the radar display, and he claims that other unreleased radar data shows that they went above or below the radar envelope.
Corbell and Elizondo resort to special pleading: The Navy has lots of data that the public doesn't have, yet the Navy couldn't identify these objects and presumably ruled out all the ordinary explanations like drones and boats based on the full data. For example, when Corbell was pressed whether the radar display he released could be showing boats, he replied that OTHER radar data showed that these objects were flying. Then, he gets upset that debunkers don't just take his word for it and don't see anything extraordinary in the data that has been made public.
Corbell's statement directly implies that we shouldn't label things as prosaic based on the information we have, we should label them as special based on information we don't have. Trust the people telling us it's unusual.
Neither origin, nor launch or landing points were able to be determined.
Unknown vehicles picked up on more than two types of RADAR.
Still images of this footage were included in the May 1st, 2020 UAPTF intelligence briefing that I have previously reported on.
It is noted in intelligence reports that the “spherical” craft appeared to be transmedium capable, and were observed descending into the water without destruction.
It is noted in intelligence reports that the “spherical” craft could not be found upon entry to the water - that a submarine was used in the search - and recovered nothing.
This footage is unclassified.
Craft remain unidentified - officially.
“The most impressive evidence we witnessed was their endurance. The event lasted over an hour with all contacts just disappearing. We were never able to discern where they departed to.” - Crewman, USS Omaha
I highlighted the unusual and interesting stuff: flights lasting longer than an hour, all contacts just disappearing, launch and landing undetermined, objects picked up on more than two types or radar (which Corbell claimed ruled out some explanations), and in the end they remain unidentified and were presented to the UAPTF.
But the video he released doesn't show any of this, in part because it's just too short, kind of how the FLIR1 (Nimitz tic tac) and Gimbal videos were too short and suspiciously cut off at the most interesting moment.
Neither origin, nor launch or landing points were able to be determined.
Unknown vehicles picked up on more than two types of RADAR.
Still images of this footage were included in the May 1st, 2020 UAPTF intelligence briefing that I have previously reported on.
It is noted in intelligence reports that the “spherical” craft appeared to be transmedium capable, and were observed descending into the water without destruction.
It is noted in intelligence reports that the “spherical” craft could not be found upon entry to the water - that a submarine was used in the search - and recovered nothing.
This footage is unclassified.
Craft remain unidentified - officially.
“The most impressive evidence we witnessed was their endurance. The event lasted over an hour with all contacts just disappearing. We were never able to discern where they departed to.” - Crewman, USS Omaha
I highlighted the unusual and interesting stuff: flights lasting longer than an hour, all contacts just disappearing, launch and landing undetermined, objects picked up on more than two types or radar (which Corbell claimed ruled out some explanations), and in the end they remain unidentified and were presented to the UAPTF.
But the video he released doesn't show any of this, in part because it's just too short, kind of how the FLIR1 (Nimitz tic tac) and Gimbal videos were too short and suspiciously cut off at the most interesting moment.
The Swan Ace itself 'just disappears', but in that case it is plausible that there is a long gap in the time frame, so that the Swan Ace has time to gently steam out of the picture. The same explanation might apply to other objects which disappear at the same time, but for the earlier sudden disappearances (and appearances), if the estimated timings at Heavytread's #93 above are correct, there probably isn't enough time for objects to go out of range laterally. Except for the final 'clip', all the events are estimated to fall within about 6 minutes. An object travelling at 60 knots would only travel 6 nm in that time, so not many would go out of the 12nm range shown on screen.
So far as I can think of, the other possible non-magical explanations, in ascending order of credibility, are:
1. the objects self-destruct with explosive charges
2. they dive into the sea
3. they use radar spoofing technology to hide themselves (which would suggest military [US or otherwise] involvement)
4. they accelerate to a speed not trackable by the radar (I think the manual suggested a limit of 150 knots)
5. although remaining within the 12nm theoretical range or the radar, beyond a certain distance they are too small to register on it. (I can't remember if the manual says anything about minimum detectable size.)
6. in the case of disappearances, they climb out of the altitude range of the radar. In the case of appearances they descend into range from above.
As I suggested at #154 above, explanation 6 would be plausible if the radar is only registering objects on or close to the surface. This would be reasonable if it is primarily a navigation tool, to help the ship avoid bumping into things or being bumped into. For that purpose it would not need to have any range higher than the top of the ship itself. A speed limit of 150 knots would at least suggest that it is not intended to cope with aircraft. But I didn't notice any explicit statement about altitude range.
As per Mick's above comment about the Visionmaster it seems they are tracking at least 2 objects, both moving between ~45 knots to ~138 knots at sea level. Corbell mentions some 14-odd objects that were apparently tracked but during this video I only hear them talking about 2 objects, track 781 and then near the end track 263. No idea what the process is for assigning numbers to these tracks, doubt there was between 200 and 700 of anything out there. So nothing in there about altitude or going from 80k ft to 50 ft. This seems most likely related to his earlier "leak" with the object that was shown on heat camera flying through the sky then descending into the ocean, I believe this is the same ship and this most recent video occurs a day before that one.
With all due respect to you and Mr. West just some analysis at risk of being commentary..."seems they are tracking at least 2 objects"...ELINT spoofing used in the 1960s (Havana Harbor by USN and the CIA) routinely created decoy targets (Mylar balloons released in Cuban airspace) that triggered Cuban/Russian military radars (Tall King/Spoon Rest) to be analyzed for the CIA A-12 Oxcart program. The spoofing worked and the USN Palladium spoofing system displayed moving "painted targets" on Cuban/Russian radar that were NOT there. Just saying you folks are assuming the objects ("at least 2 objects") are "tracking". Begs even more fundamental questions...
Displaying "target not identified" would make more sense than "UNCLASSIFIED" in green.
Jeremy Corbell stressed that the video wasn't illegally recorded on a cell phone, but that a "VIPER team" was invited to record it, and it's unclassified.
This video is presented as if it were recorded 'live', and purports to show unknown objects surrounding a key US military asset, and yet it's pre-emptively labelled 'unclassified'? I don't understand that.
How can it be all of these things at the same time? If it is live and they are monitoring something that they didn't anticipate and (allegedly) still do not know what it was, then how come it was unclassified? I would have thought that the default position on something like this would be for the information to be at least confidential until the footage/data had been analysed.
What that suggests (to my novice brain anyway) is that either this footage is not live, or that the footage is live and was only released later when it was established to be no risk to national security - but I'd imagine that recording it like this prior to establishing its importance or sensitivity is highly irregular.
Either way, something doesn't add up. Corbell's claim that it is 'unclassified' is probably based on nothing more than what he can read on the screen.
The Swan Ace itself 'just disappears', but in that case it is plausible that there is a long gap in the time frame, so that the Swan Ace has time to gently steam out of the picture. The same explanation might apply to other objects which disappear at the same time, but for the earlier sudden disappearances (and appearances), if the estimated timings at Heavytread's #93 above are correct, there probably isn't enough time for objects to go out of range laterally. Except for the final 'clip', all the events are estimated to fall within about 6 minutes. An object travelling at 60 knots would only travel 6 nm in that time, so not many would go out of the 12nm range shown on screen.
So far as I can think of, the other possible non-magical explanations, in ascending order of credibility, are:
1. the objects self-destruct with explosive charges
2. they dive into the sea
3. they use radar spoofing technology to hide themselves (which would suggest military [US or otherwise] involvement)
4. they accelerate to a speed not trackable by the radar (I think the manual suggested a limit of 150 knots)
5. although remaining within the 12nm theoretical range or the radar, beyond a certain distance they are too small to register on it. (I can't remember if the manual says anything about minimum detectable size.)
6. in the case of disappearances, they climb out of the altitude range of the radar. In the case of appearances they descend into range from above.
As I suggested at #154 above, explanation 6 would be plausible if the radar is only registering objects on or close to the surface. This would be reasonable if it is primarily a navigation tool, to help the ship avoid bumping into things or being bumped into. For that purpose it would not need to have any range higher than the top of the ship itself. A speed limit of 150 knots would at least suggest that it is not intended to cope with aircraft. But I didn't notice any explicit statement about altitude range.
1. The military version of this radar system has the capability to track "fast moving aircraft" and has a "600 knot tracking" option, so its maximum tracking speed might be 600 knots instead of 150 and it might be capable of tracking objects well above sea level. The military specs have been attached several times already in this thread but for convenience I'll attach the PDF. This feature would eliminate some of your options, or at least make them more magical
2. The 12 nm range is the range to, or in between, the edges where the 000 - 360 degree numbers are (not sure if the indicated range is a radius or a diameter, a radius seems to make more sense to me for a radar system). On top of that you can specify an interval for the rings. This interval seems to be 5 nm in the video, so the outer ring is at 10 nm, 2 mm from the edge. See included picture with a 12 nm range and 2 nm rings for an example. The interval for the rings in nm is indicated in the field below the < 12 NM > indicator in the top right of the picture.
The Swan Ace itself 'just disappears', but in that case it is plausible that there is a long gap in the time frame, so that the Swan Ace has time to gently steam out of the picture. The same explanation might apply to other objects which disappear at the same time, but for the earlier sudden disappearances (and appearances), if the estimated timings at Heavytread's #93 above are correct, there probably isn't enough time for objects to go out of range laterally.
Wow I hadn't noticed this before. In the case that Mick points out above, it's pretty clear that the targets disappear in the middle of a continuous clip and not because of editing. The reason I say this is that there is a visible ripple effect that is probably the phone camera's rolling shutter interacting with the refresh rate of the screen, and it continues to move smoothly up the screen at the same rate when the objects vanish. At 10.844s (frame 325 for me) one target disappears and at 13.347 seconds (frame 400) another vanishes.
2. The 12 nm range is the range to, or in between, the edges where the 000 - 360 degree numbers are (not sure if the indicated range is a radius or a diameter, a radius seems to make more sense to me for a radar system). On top of that you can specify an interval for the rings. This interval seems to be 5 nm in the video, so the outer ring is at 10 nm, 2 mm from the edge. See included picture with a 12 nm range and 2 nm rings for an example. The interval for the rings in nm is indicated in the field below the < 12 NM > indicator in the top right of the picture.
Yes, this is correct. Please see my analysis further up the thread. You can infer the range of each of the rings from report range of the operator's cursor. I believe it's 5 nm and 10 nm radius for the rings, with a total of visibility of 24 nm for the scope edge to edge.
Yes, this is correct. Please see my analysis further up the thread. You can infer the range of each of the rings from report range of the operator's cursor. I believe it's 5 nm and 10 nm for the rings, with a total of visibility of 12 nm for the scope edge to edge.
This is getting confusing. A total of 12 nm from edge to edge implies a diameter, not radius, of 10 nm for the outer ring (which is not quite on the edges). This would put the Swan Ace within 5 nm of the Omaha. Surely not? Did you mean from center to edge?
This video is presented as if it were recorded 'live', and purports to show unknown objects surrounding a key US military asset, and yet it's pre-emptively labelled 'unclassified'? I don't understand that.
How can it be all of these things at the same time? If it is live and they are monitoring something that they didn't anticipate and (allegedly) still do not know what it was, then how come it was unclassified? I would have thought that the default position on something like this would be for the information to be at least confidential until the footage/data had been analysed.
What that suggests (to my novice brain anyway) is that either this footage is not live, or that the footage is live and was only released later when it was established to be no risk to national security - but I'd imagine that recording it like this prior to establishing its importance or sensitivity is highly irregular.
Either way, something doesn't add up. Corbell's claim that it is 'unclassified' is probably based on nothing more than what he can read on the screen.
Military classification is not a cut and dry thing. The unclassified bar from the video is almost certainly referring to the classification level of the system, based on the capabilities of the radar and the "accuracy" of the information displayed. Since it seems this is a pretty bog standard marine radar, there is really nothing about the system that would require it to be classified. You can decide later that specific information that the system provided is classified, but that won't change the classification of the system, only the classification of the report/log/data that the system recorded. This is true for almost any military system. For example, the laptops you could find in any military office will have unclassified stickers plastered all over them, big green bars along the top and bottom with "UNCLASSIFIED", and a big green "UNCLASSIFIED" desktop background just to reinforce the point. All that means is that the system is qualified to operate on the unclassified military networks. It says nothing about what is actually on the hard drive. UAV footage will often be "SECRET", only because of the GUI elements that adversaries could use to determine our UAV capabilities. This is why strike footage the military releases for the public will often have GUI elements stripped from them - generally that's the only part that makes them "SECRET", not that we are dropping bombs.
Military classification can be complex and improper classification could make things much harder then they need to be. I'm sure that's why the Navy decided a standard navigation radar didn't need to be classified for 99.9% of cases. I also think that's why this VIPER team also recorded this radar as opposed to maybe the air search radar - if they were really there to record these UAP events, any footage of a secret system used in a report would automatically make it classified and much harder to distribute. Much easier to record the unclassified system and let someone else determine actual classification later.
Drone swarms and "Mosaic Warfare" (a DARPA term) are currently explored as the future of warfare by many armed forces the world over, and by every service branch of the US Armed Forces. Even the Marine Corps is exploring kamikaze drone swarms (OPF-I, Organic Precision Fire-Infantry).
As the former director of DARPA's Strategic Technology Office said in 2018: "The idea will be to send so many weapon and sensor platforms at the enemy that its forces are overwhelmed. The goal is to take complexity and to turn that into an asymmetric advantage."
Given the novelty as well as the strategic importance of drone swarm capabilities, drone swarm tests are (1) bound to surprise and even amaze military test subjects (USS Omaha staff included) (2) and be highly classified. If pressed to explain leaked drone swarm footage, Pentagon has little choice but to deny. "UAP" provides a convenient smokescreen.
The onus of proof is on the claimant of the more unlikely hypothesis setting forth that Pentagon would always provide straightforward and honest answers on secret capabilities caught by sensors and leaked to the public.
Given the novelty as well as the strategic importance of drone swarm capabilities, drone swarm tests are (1) bound to surprise and even amaze military test subjects (USS Omaha staff included) (2) and be highly classified. If pressed to explain leaked drone swarm footage, Pentagon has little choice but to deny. "UAP" provides a convenient smokescreen.
The onus of proof is on the claimant of the more unlikely hypothesis setting forth that Pentagon would always provide straightforward and honest answers on secret capabilities caught by sensors and leaked to the public.
DARPA was pretty open about its OFFensive Swarm-Enabled Tactics (OFFSET) program. Universities took part in that competition.
Article:
Two Swarm Systems Integrators – Northrop Grumman Mission Systems and Raytheon BBN Technologies – are creating swarm systems architectures, advanced interfaces, and virtual and physical swarm testbeds for OFFSET.
...
As OFFSET field experiments continue, Swarm Systems Integrators will look for opportunities to incorporate novel swarming technologies, including those developed by Swarm Sprinters, into their own respective architectures. During the Leschi Town experiment, Swarm Sprinters, including Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory; Michigan Tech Research Institute; University of Buffalo; and Northwestern University, demonstrated component technologies designed to enhance the Swarm Systems Integrators’ capabilities for mission execution. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km0LWvnMrtE
For example, the laptops you could find in any military office will have unclassified stickers plastered all over them, big green bars along the top and bottom with "UNCLASSIFIED", and a big green "UNCLASSIFIED" desktop background just to reinforce the point. All that means is that the system is qualified to operate on the unclassified military networks. It says nothing about what is actually on the hard drive.
DARPA was pretty open about its OFFensive Swarm-Enabled Tactics (OFFSET) program. Universities took part in that competition.
Article:
Two Swarm Systems Integrators – Northrop Grumman Mission Systems and Raytheon BBN Technologies – are creating swarm systems architectures, advanced interfaces, and virtual and physical swarm testbeds for OFFSET.
...
As OFFSET field experiments continue, Swarm Systems Integrators will look for opportunities to incorporate novel swarming technologies, including those developed by Swarm Sprinters, into their own respective architectures. During the Leschi Town experiment, Swarm Sprinters, including Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory; Michigan Tech Research Institute; University of Buffalo; and Northwestern University, demonstrated component technologies designed to enhance the Swarm Systems Integrators’ capabilities for mission execution. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km0LWvnMrtE
The pursuit of a novel military capability is a matter of public interest, and public knowledge is a requirement also for increased appropriations within the defence budget. It's the details, and certain categories of detail in particular, that are invariably classified.
Military classification is not a cut and dry thing. The unclassified bar from the video is almost certainly referring to the classification level of the system, based on the capabilities of the radar and the "accuracy" of the information displayed. Since it seems this is a pretty bog standard marine radar, there is really nothing about the system that would require it to be classified. You can decide later that specific information that the system provided is classified, but that won't change the classification of the system, only the classification of the report/log/data that the system recorded. This is true for almost any military system. For example, the laptops you could find in any military office will have unclassified stickers plastered all over them, big green bars along the top and bottom with "UNCLASSIFIED", and a big green "UNCLASSIFIED" desktop background just to reinforce the point. All that means is that the system is qualified to operate on the unclassified military networks. It says nothing about what is actually on the hard drive. UAV footage will often be "SECRET", only because of the GUI elements that adversaries could use to determine our UAV capabilities. This is why strike footage the military releases for the public will often have GUI elements stripped from them - generally that's the only part that makes them "SECRET", not that we are dropping bombs.
Military classification can be complex and improper classification could make things much harder then they need to be. I'm sure that's why the Navy decided a standard navigation radar didn't need to be classified for 99.9% of cases. I also think that's why this VIPER team also recorded this radar as opposed to maybe the air search radar - if they were really there to record these UAP events, any footage of a secret system used in a report would automatically make it classified and much harder to distribute. Much easier to record the unclassified system and let someone else determine actual classification later.
Thanks for the reply, that's pretty much in line with what I thought.
It does, however, call into (serious) question the phrase that Corbell uses on his own website regarding the video, as he clearly states "this footage is unclassified". Perhaps he is not intending to be misleading, but perhaps he is also just saying that because of what he can read on the footage itself, and hence he is merely assuming that the footage is 'declassified' or does not contain classified information - but as you have explained, that is not what 'unclassified' means in this case. This begs the obvious question, is this footage real, and if so, does it contain classified information (and if so, wouldn't that make sharing it illegal?)
I also have my doubts about who obtained this footage and whether it is 'real time'/live or if it was recorded at a different time to the actual radar data, but perhaps that is a different debate. These 'facts' pertaining to the video seem to have little to back them up other than what Corbell himself has stated, which makes me very suspicious (though I have just noticed that there is a thread on this subject too).
200730-N-SS900-1001 BREMERTON, Wash. (July 30, 2020) A logo created for the Visual Information Personnel (VIPER) team aboard Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70). The logo consists of a viper reminiscent of the team’s name with an aperture eye to symbolize the team’s focus as well as the aperture of a camera. VIPER teams are responsible for collecting imagery and data from incidents underway or in-port to capture moments of unsafe or unprofessional interaction to disseminate to a global audience and win the battle of the narrative. (U.S. Navy photo illustration by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Aaron T. Smith/Released)
Basically they seem to be tasked with documenting incidents in order to share it to "global audiences". So they would probably only be allowed to use unclassified methods and sources.
My hypothesis is they set up a screen in the CIC which was purposefully set to "unclassified" mode and filmed in order to be shared. The CIC was probably seeing the full data in the screens they were actually using to track the objects.
That would also explain why the actions on screen don't always seem to match the audio discussion.
Just to put forward one other point that may or may not be interest in our analysis.
If a key element of a particular military capability (say a type of drone swarm) is to overwhelm the enemy by obscurity and inexplicability, then any unclassified footage of that capability must likewise officially remain inexplicable. Both within and without the DoD. Its true nature as a drone swarm must therefore remain strictly classified at a higher level of classification.
This is getting confusing. A total of 12 nm from edge to edge implies a diameter, not radius, of 10 nm for the outer ring (which is not quite on the edges). This would put the Swan Ace within 5 nm of the Omaha. Surely not? Did you mean from center to edge?
Right.. my bad. I meant that the rings are 5 nm and 10 nm from the center, and the edge of the scope is 12 nm from the center. So the rings are 10 nm and 20 nm in diameter and the scope is 24 nm in diameter ('edge to edge')
This video is presented as if it were recorded 'live', and purports to show unknown objects surrounding a key US military asset, and yet it's pre-emptively labelled 'unclassified'? I don't understand that.
How can it be all of these things at the same time? If it is live and they are monitoring something that they didn't anticipate and (allegedly) still do not know what it was, then how come it was unclassified? I would have thought that the default position on something like this would be for the information to be at least confidential until the footage/data had been analysed.
What that suggests (to my novice brain anyway) is that either this footage is not live, or that the footage is live and was only released later when it was established to be no risk to national security - but I'd imagine that recording it like this prior to establishing its importance or sensitivity is highly irregular.
Either way, something doesn't add up. Corbell's claim that it is 'unclassified' is probably based on nothing more than what he can read on the screen.
Maybe just the displayed range is unclassified, not the entire display. Or the radar is nothing special, so it's unclassified. Or they were conducting an exercise with no classified elements.
Corbell talked about obtaining the footage, on a podcast starting at 17:16. https://www.mysterywire.com/video/p...as-surrounded-by-ufo-swarm/6673244/?anvt=1036
He didn't explain how he determined that it's unclassified, other than saying that people on a VIPER team "try not to film a classified radar system because then that camera will then be classified because it once filmed something classified."
We assume the disappearing object had to fly out of range or was a spoofed track, correct?
Question: What about flying under, over or very near by to another object? Would the tracks merge into one?
In this case, the disappearing "drones" didnt had to travel out of range within the radars "refresh rate". They just had to travel to another, nearby plot.
We assume the disappearing object had to fly out of range or was a spoofed track, correct?
Question: What about flying under, over or very near by to another object? Would the tracks merge into one?
In this case, the disappearing "drones" didnt had to travel out of range within the radars "refresh rate". They just had to travel to another, nearby plot.
Maybe just the displayed range is unclassified, not the entire display. Or the radar is nothing special, so it's unclassified. Or they were conducting an exercise with no classified elements.
Corbell talked about obtaining the footage, on a podcast starting at 17:16. https://www.mysterywire.com/video/p...as-surrounded-by-ufo-swarm/6673244/?anvt=1036
He didn't explain how he determined that it's unclassified, other than saying that people on a VIPER team "try not to film a classified radar system because then that camera will then be classified because it once filmed something classified."
I believe the whole display is unclassified. I've seen this type of thing in other systems - each screen will have overall classification depending on the data it shows. This follows the classification guidelines the government uses where every page / slide / etc needs to have an overall classification.
The position and speed of a bunch of dots without any other context is nothing special.
Recording classified data on a personal phone is serious violation. Doing it intentionally could get you fired and I won't be surprised if you are prosecuted. You are not allowed to record even unclassified displays like this one, but I guess an officer might have given them permission under the circumstances, given the display is unclassified.
Unclassified info can still be designated "For Official Use Only" or have other such makings. I would image this is. Before something like that gets released, it needs to go through review to make sure it doesn't contain anything classified, or when combined with other public information can reveal something classified. It's a process.
I think whoever leaked this to Corbell just told him this is unclassified. This is still a violation but not as serious.
Corbell is right to say that "the camera will be classified". If a device contains classified data, the device is treated the same as the materials it contains. Say I have a USB with classified documents - it's the same as if I have printouts of those documents in a folder.
