Discussion in 'UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal' started by Mick West, Apr 29, 2019.
OK, but this form covers 3 videos. Don't you think we can at least exclude the FLIR video (ie. the one from the Nimitz) as being a balloon ? Could a balloon have broken the camera tracking lock like it does at the end of the video ?
Also of note, as far as I know the abbreviations UAV and UAS typically stand for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle and Unmanned Aerial System (ie. drones). I don't think the "U" stands for unidentified.
Of the three videos, only GoFast is likely a ballon. The other two are hot, so are probably the exhausts of planes/UAVs.
Very good point! So in fact all three "Subject Area" items listed have well-established meanings within the military that reside within terrestrial phenomena. UAV is known to mean "unmanned aerial vehicle," "Balloons" are obviously terrestrial, and UAS is also known to mean "unmanned aerial system." Only the acronym UAP has meaning within the UFO nexus, yet it is not used. This implies that the Pentagon recognizes the videos to show terrestrial phenomena and that they are cataloged as instances of such. Elizondo's application for the release of the videos fits the pattern that there is no evidence AATIP, and now even the videos, have anything to do with unidentified aerial phenomena.
Notice also section 3 of the DD 1910 Form gives reasons for wanting the videos released, stating:
It follows that by "defeat UAS threats" Elizondo would be understood by officials to mean foreign terrestrial UAS threats. It's impossible to believe he anticipated it to be understood that he wants to study how to defeat extraterrestrial threats. Even if we assume the military knows that there are ETs flying around our skies with impunity, an offshoot private project that aims to "defeat" them makes no sense at all. It would be like an Amazon tribe with bows and arrows planning to defeat the US Military. Indeed, it would be a greater disparity than that and Pentagon brass would surely recognize that. Efforts to communicate would be far more likely, not letting a private project figure how to throw rocks at such intergalactic super-intelligences lurking around us.
From this new info I suspect Nimitz and Gimbal are UAV and Go Fast is a balloon, as we surmised. Lol, I just logged in to post this I-Team report, then saw Mick beat me to it.
Here is a relevant paper by a long-time UFO researcher while @ the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena showing the establish meanings of the terms in question:
Only the 'U' in the acronym UAP is understood to mean "unidentified." A military glossary gives the known meaning of UAV and UAS...
"UAP" is not listed in any military glossary I can find. So it seems the DD 1910 Form explicitly requested videos of unmanned aircraft and balloons, not of unidentified aerial phenomena.
I'd say it's more one subject area (UAS) with two sub-areas (UAV and Balloons).
I think that's very likely. Although I'd not rule out some non-UAV jet for Nimitz and Gimbal.
The Nimitz video is called "FLIR". There was speculation (months ago) that some or all of the videos might be training videos used to show the types of misidentification the pilots make, with the names related to the underlying cause.
FLIR - mistaking a heat signature for the actual shape?
Gimbal (presumably "gimble" is a misspelling) - mistaking gimbal-related flare rotation for actual rotation?
Go Fast - mistaking apparent speed from parallax for actual speed?
The names (FLIR,GIMBAL, GO FAST) have me wondering where the videos came from. The US Navy has a system of labeling their video/image files. It set out by OPNAVINST 3104.1 dated 9 Oct 09
Each photograph/video should have a VIRIN
I also found the mention of a VIRIN in OPNAVINST 3104.3 (NAVAL COMBAT CAMERA (COMCAM) PROGRAM POLICY,
RESPONSIBILITIES, AND PROCEDURES) states the following about the VIRIN:
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/doni/Di...s/03-100 Naval Operations Support/3104.3A.pdf
If these videos were directly from the US Navy, the form would reference the VIRIN and not some name that appears to be created by whoever presented the video. This makes me believe that the three videos came from Bigelow, who obtained the clips from the internet (which is why the FLIR is so low quality) or private sources (he had at least one Navy pilot in his group).
The videos all seemed to be based around things that might confuse a novice FLIR operator and we speculated the original purpose of the clips might have been part of training materials.
It's possible they are from the US Navy but filtered through a process where they became training videos for FLIR operators and thus the original file names were lost when they were clipped to demonstrate some common mistakes when interpreting FLIR imagery.
So perhaps the videos were specifically requested because
1. They came from the Navy so they can be spun to be "DoD released" giving them credibility
2. Because they are not mission videos they lose the metadata and context which provides the explanation for what we are seeing in them allowing the contents of them to be spun however you want.
The point of the instruction is that the VIRIN travels with the file no matter what. This way the original can be accessed from the database. To give it some arbitrary name would not be consistent with the instruction. The one thing I learned in my 20+ years was that military personnel always follow the instructions otherwise there will be hell to pay. If an officer approves a document that goes up the chain that is not per the instruction, they often receive a stern rebuke by their superiors. I used to have to help write a letter to the head of Naval Reactors for my Submarine. The format had to be just right and you were not to deviate from that format. The Commanding Officer would make sure what he sent up the chain was exactly how the Admiral wanted it to be.
Tim, the DD 1910 application asks for the Title of the files. Is the VIRIN the title? I believe not. This DoD file-naming, or captioning, protocol is given:
@ https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/504002p.pdf page 25
That aside, the office cited as the source of the videos in the DD 1910 application for release is the Navy. But wait a minute, haven't we been led to believe that these were files used by AATIP to study UAP? AATIP was not an office of the Navy. So the videos appear unrelated to AATIP. Just again and again, like Greenewald says, nothing matches up.
I would disagree with that.
If the videos are what they are claimed to be they would certainly have originated with the Navy. AATIP would have obtained them via some mechanism because (if we accept Elizondo's statements) they were tasked with investigating UAP reports throughout the military.
The names do seem strange since they could hardly uniquely identify these videos. However once AATIP obtained them it's possible they were free to name them however they wanted since not being part of the Navy they wouldn't have been subject to the Navy's naming requirements.
Overall it seems to me that the DD-1910 largely matches up with what Elizondo has said about how the videos were released, except for the subject area field.
and the fact that LITERALLY there is no approval "signature" anywhere on that document.
and can you request 3 seperate things in one request? I'm trying to google that but @igoddard 's link keeps telling me its not available.
what do they do if someone wanted to release 2 of the requests but not the third?
Of course they "would have originated with the Navy." That rather makes my point... and then would have been transferred to AATIP for investigation. But there's no corroborating evidence that AATIP investigated UAP/UFOs. And AATIP also did not posses the videos.
So the files resided with the Navy but followed a naming convention by AATIP? The simpler explanation is the fact that the DD 1910 requests the Title, not the VIRIN, so the titles and not the VIRINs were given.
Sure, it matches up in the most superficial way... they were approved for release by the military.
That file and its homepage
take forever to respond, I guess some browsers will give up. It's curious that the I-Team report does not explain how they acquired the DD 1910 form. But shortly after the NY Times report Leslie Kean said she had a copy of it. She said she had a copy of it during an interview with Alejandro Rojasavatar on Open Minds Radio. So maybe the I-Team got it from her. This then, also considering the possible problems you and Tim cite, raises the question of if this document even real, as she presumably didn't get it from a FOIA request. Greenewald has been unable to locate it after extensive FOIA interrogation (see post 230545).
He has said that the FOIA request for the DD-1910 is still outstanding, so I don't think you can draw any conclusions from that.
th eother thing.... i havent really been keeping up... if "Flir", "Gimbal" etc were mp3s available to the public wouldnt a bunch of other people have requested the originals through FOIA? has anyone you know of received mp3s under those names (or under any names?)
Here's the DD 1910 form, with brief entry explanations... https://www.secnav.navy.mil/dusnp/Forms/dd1910.pdf
Well, we have the statements of the former head of AATIP as well as of former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. That alone would be considered good evidence for most ordinary purposes.
In addition there is the e-mail Roger Glassel received from Pentagon spokeperson Maj. Harris which says:
From this website: http://www.blueblurrylines.com/2018/05/pentagon-confirmation-aatip-advanced.html
Good point Gerard and good find. Greenewald raised issues raised here as well and at that link he gives scores of examples of verified filed DD 1910 forms. He also notices that the I-Team does not explain how they acquired the form, and he raises questions about the authenticity of this one, but does not conclude it's not authentic, just that there are issues with it. Greenewald states:
I'm sure they have but most AATIP related requests seem to be coming back with "no records".
But that still doesn't necessarily mean much. For one thing it seems possible that some agencies respond with "no records" for documents that are FOIA exempt, due, for example, to being classified. I don't know that this is the case but I haven't seen any evidence that this isn't being done.
In any case there have also been "no records" responses for things like basic documentation on AATIP ( though I think Greenewald is still appealing these), which must exist based solely on official public statements.
Yes, I posted that same quote from Reid's letter to a Dark Journalist video a few weeks ago, noting it as a scintilla of evidence of UAP investigation. But it doesn't say as much explicitly, and in Greenewald's interview I posted he covers that and notes the fact that Reid is effectively pushing for continuation of AATIP and thus for a contract with Bigelow Aerospace, which is located in his state.
The above quote isn't from Reid's letter, it's from a Pentagon spokesperson.
Seems pretty explicit.
This excerpt is from:
There's a lot of quotes flying around. Please give links for reference and quote the full context where possible:
The only in-quotes portion of the excerpt you quoted ("far-term foreign advanced aerospace threats the United States") is from Reid's letter, as it states. That's the letter I also quoted a few weeks ago. The commentary from Major Harris is not corroborating evidence, it's an opinion offered in passing not backed up by documentation (I presume since none is provided). We want documents, not recent claims, from a time prior to the TTSA media blitz that independently confirm AATIP investigated UFOs.
Within a couple minutes of the time-point of my link to the Greenewald interview, he comments at length on the "no documents" returns.
I don't think government spokespeople are supposed to provide personal opinions in official written communications with the public.
To me this is an official statement from the Department of Defense, regardless of what is or isn't in quotes. If you don't consider that to be evidence of anything, that's fine.
In your reply above, the statement attributed to Major Harris cites Reid's letter, quotes his letter and then in the same sentence closes the quote and continues describing AATIP apparently paraphrasing Reid's letter. In that paraphrased portion a number of UFO/ETish buzzwords appear ("anomalous events," "extreme maneuvers," "unique phenomenology") but that do not appear in Reid's letter.
It does seem unexpected, I would agree, for a DoD information professional to paraphrase (ie, to offer their personal opinion / interpretation of a document) rather than rely entirely on the document. Unexpected too is that it is within the opinion attributed to Major Harris that a number of 'TTSA tropes' emerge.
It's worth noting that Major Harris made the same statement in this email to John Greenewald, except that the paraphrased portion wherein the UFO/ETish buzzwords popped up was not included...
It seems to me that AATIP would by default be interested in credible UFO reports as possible sightings of advanced Russian or Chinese aerospace developments. So too, air-traffic control (ATC) at an airport would by default be interested in credible immediate evidence of a UFO in so far as it might pose a threat to air-traffic safety. But to say ATC constitutes a UFO-investigation service would be misleading. At best, with what we have available at the moment, AATIP's involvement with UFOs would appear to be, like that of ATC, by happenstance rather than by explicit directive.
Sure, I don't think that point of view really even conflicts with what Elizondo has been saying.
At this point I think the most important question is: does the Navy/DoD have evidence for the existence of aerial vehicles whose performance characteristics are far beyond those of any foreseeable developments based on currently known technology and physics or not ?
If the answer to this question is yes it is likely to have very far-reaching consequences regardless of who owns the craft.
If it does those 3 videos are not it.
If it is a hard "yes" then it's probably not humans. I think the possibility of a BRIC county developing in-atmosphere warp drives decades ago, with the US being blissfully unaware of this and only sticking Bigelow and Elizondo on the job because of lobbying from UFO enthusiasts is vanishingly small.
I think it's FAR more likely that there are no warp drives operating anywhere near Earth, that reports of 1000g accelerations are wrong, and these videos are of relatively mundane object. Hopefully the Navy will provide some clarification eventually.
I'm not sure how you can assert that with certainty.
Did I miss where these 3 objects were definitively identified as conventional ?
extraordinary claims require at least semi-strong evidence. There is nothing to suggest (other than media types looking to make money) that there is anything extraordinary about these vid clips.
imo, if they were legit then TTSA wouldnt be pulling a Blair Witch stunt before their History channel series comes out this month.
I don't dispute that the videos in and of themselves don't show evidence of anomalous behavior. But it seems to me a stretch to conclude from that that the objects shown are definitely not anomalous unless they can actually be identified as something conventional.
Point taken and if all of these videos were posted by some random person on the Internet I wouldn't have spent much time thinking about them. But in the case of the FLIR video, this has been identified by several witnesses as the video taken during one of tic-tac intercepts during the Nimitz incident and that case does have a considerable amount of apparently credible testimony behind it.
I wouldnt myself say "definite". But if there is an earthly logical answer vs an extraterrestrial answer... i wish fairies were real too, so im not knocking your wanting to hold out the possibility.
That's really the only one i understand the long form nerd explanation. So i do believe it is a plane. But that's me.
Go fast, regarding this thread, i dont understand parallexes and stuff- but it looks like bird. Possibly its speed is suspicious, but i dont personally find it suspicious. I myself would need to SEE a UFO in footage, not just some blob of something esp in infrared. But i'm from a 'ghost enthusiast' background so i'm suspicious of blobs and "witnesses". So i may be overly biased regarding blobs, human recollection and human motivation to stretch the truth.
Personally I have no preference one way or the other. My only interest is to ascertain what's true, to the extent possible, and I don't believe that excluding hypotheses a priori is the best way of achieving that goal.
so the bird or balloon evidence/demonstrations presented in this thread is not convincing to you regarding the speed of the blob?
I would have to re-read many posts here and probably do my own analysis to fully convince myself of that, which I'm not inclined to make the effort to do.
But as I said above:
However I think an anomalous object could travel at slow speeds as well (in fact the Nimitz incident observations claim that the tic-tacs spent most of their time travelling at around 100 knots).
So its a 'logical' leap from 'I can't explain it it, straight to 'therefore aliens'? Why not stop at 'hard to explain' first?
I have no idea how you got from what I've posted here to your question so I just don't know how to answer you. Please note though that I haven't once mentioned "aliens".
The whole question of was AATIP even a UFO program is somewhat peripheral noise wrt the question of what the videos show. They could show real ET craft and AATIP was not a UFO program, or they could show terrestrial craft and AATIP was a UFO program. It's a question probably nobody anticipated when the TTSA media blitz hit. I assumed AATIP's mission was exactly what media reported. It's only after FOIA investigations that the possibility arose that, lo and behold, it may have no or at best only peripheral relation to UFOs.
But if it didn't have anything to do with UFOs and we were sold a 'false bill of goods' on it, that does undermine the credibility of the whole package and fits with the videos also not being what they're sold as. So in that way the question is not irrelevant to the whole TTSA package including the videos.
Separate names with a comma.