USS Omaha UFO / UAP Radar Video

ventsyv

New Member
I noticed something else.

The sailors are looking at radar that tracks mostly surface vessels. Ship usually travel at 15 - 20 knots, 30 if they haul ass.
So speeds of 40 - 50 knots and especially 138 would be extraordinary. That explains why the sailors are excited - they believe they are looking at surface vessels.

The IR video obviously shows the object is in the air. So either :
  • They haven't seen it at the time
  • it's not the same object
 

Domzh

Active Member
i dont believe thats true. radar provides altitude data.

the drone swarming reactions also dont come across especially excited to me personally. its the military, so there better is some kind of urgency in their behavior.

i agree that there is no reason to link the IR video of the blob to the drone swarming we see in the radar footage.
 

Touring Mars

New Member
What seems abundantly clear to me is that Corbell doesn't have the foggiest clue what he is talking about and has a distinct tendency to take almost everything he sees at face value. The fact that he claims this footage is 'unclassified' seems to be based on nothing more than what he can either read for himself (even if he doesn't actually understand what it actually means/entails) or what he may have been told by a 'trusted' source, even if that also turns out to be wrong.

I can't get over the fact that Corbell presents this footage as 'live' - that the footage shown in the video was recorded as the events in the real work actually unfolded. If that's true, then the fact that it says 'unclassified' on the screen during the event itself doesn't mean what he thinks it means. If the events shown on the radar constitute something that was later deemed to be 'unclassified', then how can the footage be live? Is it possible that the footage (including the audio commentary) was after-the-fact i.e. people watching a playback? The only evidence for this being actually live radar readouts seems to be Corbell's personal testimony as far as I can tell, and given how he seems to be quite inept at properly scrutinising his own videos, that would warrant further investigation itself.
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
The fact that he claims this footage is 'unclassified' seems to be based on nothing more than what he can either read for himself (even if he doesn't actually understand what it actually means/entails) or what he may have been told by a 'trusted' source, even if that also turns out to be wrong.

I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. Corbell and Knapp have both always maintained they reach out through official channels to verify classification status of this stuff before releasing it to the public. The extreme speed at which the Pentagon has verified the recent releases serves as evidence to confirm that they've had a heads up a public release was imminent. People here may not like the guy due to his interest in the UFO topic but Knapp is still a legitimate journalist and I've seen no reason to doubt that he's maintaining journalistic integrity in making decisions on whether or not to release data.

Something Corbell has never discussed as far as I'm aware is whether he's ever received something and been told it can't be released due to classification. I'd be interested in hearing his answer to that one.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
I'm not sure if this has already been posted, but according to this document, the INP's budget decreased from 2018 to 2019 due to the completion of project Nemesis. I'm sorry if this is off-topic.

Actually you might me more on point than any of us, including yours truly. @jackfrostvc had already visited the NEMESIS hypothesis earlier with respect to the first batch of Navy videos leaked by Elizondo. However, the USS Omaha video seems to better fit a possible NEMESIS drone swarm conducting an electronic warfare experiment for tactical deception:

Netted Emulation of Multi-Element Signature against Integrated Sensors, or NEMESIS, appears to be an ongoing Navy program begun in 2014. The Drive article dated 7 November 2019 (also cited by @jackfrostvc earlier on another thread) writes:

More specifically, the Fiscal Year 2014 Electromagnetic Systems Applied Research RDT&E Budget Item Justification states that NEMESIS “addresses the need to generate the appearance of a realistic naval force to multiple adversarial surveillance and targeting sensors simultaneously.”

Later in that same document, a more detailed description of the program states that NEMESIS consists of “reconfigurable and modular EW payloads, Distributed Decoy and Jammer Swarms (DDJS), effective acoustic countermeasures (CM), and Multiple Input/Multiple Output Sensor/CM (MIMO S/CM) for false force generation to both above and below water sensors.”

The 2018 and 2019 budget justifications state that "Nemesis expendable decoys and prototype system hardware will be completed and delivered for field testing" and that demonstrations of these expendable decoys "will be conducted during fleet experimentation, as well as during focused field and laboratory tests."

Earlier in 2017 Rear Adm. Bret C. Batchelder highlighted the importance of putting new technologies and tactics "into the hands of warfighters more quickly -- ultimately for fielding, but first for experimentation."

"The Navy needs to accelerate the pace at which we deliver these solutions to fleet users," Batchelder said. "Fleet experimentation allows us to get early feedback on technologies or tactics by letting the Sailors who will actually use these systems provide input in a wargame or at-sea experiment."

From the foregoing we can state somewhat safely that NEMESIS swarms have already been tested during Navy training exercises.

Due to the highly classified nature of the program, we have no access (nor should we) to footage or images of what "reconfigurable and modular EW payloads, Distributed Decoy and Jammer Swarms (DDJS)" would look like and what would be some of their flight characteristics. Perhaps someone savvy could dig up images of older equivalent capabilities?

As of now, the NEMESIS hypothesis for the USS Omaha footage gets my vote.

Meanwhile, across the pond, Major Dom Wiejak from the British MoD writes aptly about the importance of including tactical deception into British military exercises:

Collective training organisations and exercises must demand the use of deception. More importantly, the exercise construct must allow both sides to exploit deception activities fully, not only in terms of materiel capability but in supporting and simulating the use of longer-term ruses (e.g. cry wolf) and supporting agencies. Doing so will drive commanders and staff to consider not only how they can achieve success through deception but how to counter an adversary’s use of deceptive measures.
 

relm1

New Member
What seems abundantly clear to me is that Corbell doesn't have the foggiest clue what he is talking about and has a distinct tendency to take almost everything he sees at face value. The fact that he claims this footage is 'unclassified' seems to be based on nothing more than what he can either read for himself (even if he doesn't actually understand what it actually means/entails) or what he may have been told by a 'trusted' source, even if that also turns out to be wrong.

I can't get over the fact that Corbell presents this footage as 'live' - that the footage shown in the video was recorded as the events in the real work actually unfolded. If that's true, then the fact that it says 'unclassified' on the screen during the event itself doesn't mean what he thinks it means. If the events shown on the radar constitute something that was later deemed to be 'unclassified', then how can the footage be live? Is it possible that the footage (including the audio commentary) was after-the-fact i.e. people watching a playback? The only evidence for this being actually live radar readouts seems to be Corbell's personal testimony as far as I can tell, and given how he seems to be quite inept at properly scrutinising his own videos, that would warrant further investigation itself.
You give him too much credit. His livelihood is based on these videos being misinterpreted. He has no interest in accuracy or truth. Proof is the Bob Lazar bull shit. Stan Friedman at least was a UFO believer who accepted skepticism and rejected Lazar and would have rejected Corbell too. He's a snake oil salesman.
 

Andy Bantly

New Member
If it was 138 knots, that still doesn't best the fastest drone speed record. Why can't the military get decent film recording devices? In April 2019 the Drone Racing League clocked a drone at 163.5 mph (142 knots). We all know that UFO's don't make a splash when they enter the water (snicker) so clearly it was a terrestrial object.

My brother who is a retired chief from guided missile destroyers, who specialized in radar, said this "Silly as f***. Navigational radar on the bridge is not going to give data like Aegis or a 3d search radar. Nav radar is fine for distance to the buoy, or don't run over the idiots in the rowboat. Think the whole thread is specious since it's non-military folks' Oh, and he loves debunking UFO's. He wrote a paper on it which was pretty impressive.
 
Last edited:

JMartJr

Senior Member
Why can't the military get decent film recording devices?
Presumably they have it, and imagery taken which captures sufficient detail does not make the cut as a mysterious UFO. Or I suppose is classifed to hide the Big Secret. (My money is on the former.)

My brother who is a retired chief from guided missile destroyers, who specialized in radar ... loves debunking UFO's. He wrote a paper on it which was pretty impressive.
If he'd be amenable to it being shared here, and you'd be amenable to sharing it, I'd be interested in reading it. I am aware though that some folks are not wanting to dox themselves.
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
Why can't the military get decent film recording devices?

They can. Spooky anomalous UFOs only exist in low information zones. When the recording is sufficient enough to reveal detail it always offers a prosaic explanation for whatever is being observed. There's a good reason the "good stuff" is still nothing more than a rumor after 80 years.
 

Andy Bantly

New Member
Presumably they have it, and imagery taken which captures sufficient detail does not make the cut as a mysterious UFO. Or I suppose is classifed to hide the Big Secret. (My money is on the former.)


If he'd be amenable to it being shared here, and you'd be amenable to sharing it, I'd be interested in reading it. I am aware though that some folks are not wanting to dox themselves.
I told him he should submit it and he said he would but he probably went down his other favorite hobby hole which is model rocketry. I will get it from him and attach here.
 
Why can't the military get decent film recording devices?
They have them...But also much better things to point them at.

Your brother's point about the radar is very valid and I can't disagree with his conclusion...However I suspect we are unlikely to be given access to data from the Aegis system or CIC, for one reason or another. ;)
 
Andy's Brother here - read some of the board and decided that it didn't seem to have personal attacks. Thus, an account. Pls NO ship specific Q's - I won't answer those : ) I drive a tractor now.
The Sergeant is correct on data.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
I told him he should submit it and he said he would but he probably went down his other favorite hobby hole which is model rocketry. I will get it from him and attach here.

Thanks in advance. I'm particularly interested in your brother's view on whether or not navigational radars on the bridge (as opposed to the fancier radars elsewhere on the ship) can accurately pick up objects flying very high or flying very fast.
 
Nope.
A Nav radar has a low elevation beam - it is designed to pick up other ships, boats, buoys, obstacles, and shoreline. Assists navigation.
They have pretty high resolution and will pick up low flying aircraft or 'objects.' You can probably find the specs for the nav radar from the mfr - after all you can buy one.

A 3D search radar gives 3 measurements: bearing, range, and elevation (usually converted to altitude via basic trig and an algorithm for curvature of the earth.

Cheers / Robert
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
Nope.
A Nav radar has a low elevation beam - it is designed to pick up other ships, boats, buoys, obstacles, and shoreline. Assists navigation.
They have pretty high resolution and will pick up low flying aircraft or 'objects.' You can probably find the specs for the nav radar from the mfr - after all you can buy one.

A 3D search radar gives 3 measurements: bearing, range, and elevation (usually converted to altitude via basic trig and an algorithm for curvature of the earth.

Cheers / Robert

Thanks Farm Bob! Switching from Navy ships to tractors seems like one more than qualified to operate a less complex piece of machinery, no matter how fine. :cool:

What's your take on the object clocking 138 knots on the navigational radar? Seen anything similar?
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
To recap and compile some of the key findings in this thread (statements 1 through 7) in support of the likeliest hypothesis (statement 8):

(1) The proximity of the mid-July 2019 USS Omaha UAP sightings to the San Clemente UAV/drone base

(2) USS Kidd, USS Rafael Peralta, USS Russell, USS John Finn and cruise ship Carnival Imagination also reporting seeing swarms of "drones"/"UAV" through 14-15 July 2019 not far from San Clemente

(3) The Navy, already in 2017, highlighting the importance of putting new technologies and tactics into fleet experimentation (tests) more quickly

(4) The USS Omaha navigational radar readings being within the capability parameters of known UAV technology, and probably well within the parameters of cutting-edge experimental UAV capability

(5) The existence, since 2014, of the classified NEMESIS program which addresses the need "to generate the appearance of a realistic naval force to multiple adversarial surveillance and targeting sensors simultaneously", using, amongst other things, reconfigurable and modular EW payloads, Distributed Decoy and Jammer Swarms (DDJS), effective acoustic countermeasures (CM), and Multiple Input/Multiple Output Sensor/CM (MIMO S/CM) for false force generation to both above and below water sensors

(6) The USS Omaha basic navigational radar (also commercially available) being a vulnerable target for false fleet signatures when using cutting-edge experimental electronic warfare technology

(7) The ability to surprise, distract and overwhelm the enemy, including during fleet exercises, being the main purpose of drone swarms designed for tactical deception

(8) Taken together, single out as the likeliest hypothesis a Navy electronic warfare test using drone swarms and signature management conducted as part of a broader mid-July 2019 Navy fleet experiment.

I wouldn't go as far as saying the USS Omaha footage is explained. But if indeed classified US capability was being tested, the Navy would obviously not be in a position to confirm such a hypothesis.

However, we have collated sufficient data to arrive at the likeliest explanation with reasonable confidence.

P.S. There are precedents. We know from declassified CIA documents that many experimental USAF capabilities such as the SR-71 Blackbird were initially reported as UFOs when first spotted. The Pentagon had no qualms going along with that smokescreen.
 
Last edited:

DavidB66

Active Member
American readers may be familiar with this, but I've only just come across the strange story of the 'Battle of Los Angeles' (quite accidentally, while searching for images of searchlights reflected from clouds). In February 1942 the US army fired over 1000 anti-aircraft shells into the sky over Los Angeles, following reports of intrusions by Japanese aircraft. According to a post-war study,

When documenting the incident in 1949, the United States Coast Artillery Association identified a meteorological balloon sent aloft at 1:00 am as having "started all the shooting" and concluded that "once the firing started, imagination created all kinds of targets in the sky and everyone joined in". In 1983, the US Office of Air Force History attributed the event to a case of "war nerves" triggered by a lost weather balloon and exacerbated by stray flares and shell bursts from adjoining batteries.

This quote is taken from a full account on Wikipedia here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles

The USS Omaha sightings cannot be fully explained in the same way, since there is objective radar data, but the case does illustrate the fact that even military observers can imagine things in the sky, especially under stress.
 
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
Mick West USS Omaha "Transmedium" Sphere Descending To the Sea UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 289
P Possible explanation for radar jamming in the Nimitz encounter UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 33
jarlrmai ATFLIR and range information (RADAR/LASER/Passive range?) UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 15
H Were Fravor and co in the middle of a test of radar spoofing tech? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 20
D [Possible explanation] Kevin Day (Nimitz tictac ufos) radar encounter UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 9
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 4
Z.W. Wolf Kobe Bryant Helicopter: Air Traffic Recording and Radar Footage General Discussion 3
Mick West Cube in a Sphere UFO's Seen by Navy pilots. Radar Targets? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 17
Whitebeard 'Strange' Flight Path on FR24 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 10
W Debunked: RADAR proves no curve! Flat Earth 30
Marin B Flight Radar 24 glitch? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
S Claim: Russian radar would have picked up MH17 missile Flight MH17 15
Jparmele89 Radar Anomaly, October 9, 2015 Science and Pseudoscience 7
Trailblazer Unusual flight paths over SW England Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 12
TEEJ Belfast Observer Skywatch claiming that airliners do not appear on Flight Radar 24 - 10th March 2015 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
D [MoreInfoNeeded]Germany NewsTV: Explanation for radar cloud Contrails and Chemtrails 14
TEEJ Gary Cameron Clydebank, Scotland Video, 1st May 2015- Claim of aircraft not being on Flight Radar 24 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
Efftup Issue with Flight Radar 24? General Discussion 10
Simon Gunson MH370 Radar sighting in Straits of Malacca debunked Flight MH370 30
Qualiall Air Algerie Flight AH5017 carrying 116 disappears from radar General Discussion 10
BlueCollarCritic Weatherman Acknowledges Military's Dumping of Chaff into The Atmosphere Contrails and Chemtrails 27
M Claim: MH370 "thrown around like fighter jet in a bid to avoid radar source"? [Dubious] Flight MH370 11
David Fraser The NERC funded MST Radar facility in Wales is not a HAARP installation Contrails and Chemtrails 58
ssfor27 Debunked: Dover Air Force Base radar "pulse" HAARP 1
solrey Debunked: Radar anomalies and severe weather HAARP 42
solrey Debunked: RADAR used to GENERATE LIGHTNING via S-band HAARP 2
Spongebob New analysis of 9/11 radar and video evidence 9/11 6
Mick West Debunked: Chemtrail Spray Operations Captured on Doppler Radar Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Leonardo Cuellar Could The Gimbal Video Show an Atlas V Launch? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 24
S Did NIST edit WTC building 7 footage? 9/11 4
N Explained: "Jellyfish object" video in Russia [Rocket Launch] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
F Example of a Boeing 737 "Tic Tac" (video) UFOs and Aliens 9
ki_cz Need help debunking FE video Flat Earth 42
R Video of UFOs around/on the sun - Sunspots and a Bird UFOs and Aliens 15
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
LorentzHall Elizondo Claims DoD Have A 50-Feet-Away Photo & 23 Minute Video UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 30
R Explained: Video of Vandenberg UFO shooting down ICBM [reenactment] UFOs and Aliens 8
Vara La Fey Video of all FAA mandated aircraft lights? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
V Needs debunking: flat earthers claim this reflection to show a harness in ISS video Flat Earth 10
M Any explanation for this UFO video? UFOs and Aliens 6
V Gimbal Video Interactive Software/Program UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 16
S Does this video footage show a dragon (sea serpent) attacking a manatee? [No] Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
CeruleanBlu Video summary of Independent Forensic Team Report on Oroville Dam Oroville Dam 2
J White dot in top left of Gimbal video UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 3
bird_up "Gimbal UFO video rendered in 3D" by Abominati0n UFOs and Aliens 5
M 'UFO' video just shows contrail formation? Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Mick West Mike Lindell's 2-Hour Election Fraud Claim Video "Absolute Proof": Hacking Claims Election 2020 7
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Trailblazer Reutlingen Fake UFO Video 2013 UFOs and Aliens 3
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top