• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

From The NY Times: The Pentagon's Secret UFO Program

Free episodes:

this footage comes with crucial chain-of-custody (CoC) documentation because it is a product of US military sensors, which confirms it is original

I was looking at the wording above they used for the FLIR1 video, which doesn't actually say they have CoC documents, but rather it's almost as if documentation and confirmation of originality would somehow follow just from the fact that it is a product of military sensors. To me that wording looked a bit suspicious.

But here's the equivalent bit for the GIMBAL video:
GIMBAL is the first of three US military videos of unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) that has been through the official declassification review process of the United States government and has been approved for public release. This footage, and all official USG footage you will see on TTS Academy’s Community of Interest (COI), comes with essential chain-of-custody documentation validating that it is received in its original and unaltered form and is authentic. The US Department of Defense uses this process in order to meticulously ensure that information and material retain their integrity without revealing sources and methods. This documentation is what sets this footage apart from anything else that has previously made its way to the public domain, by establishing its authenticity and thereby giving it enormous historical significance.
GIMBAL VIDEO

That seems to be quite clear that there's actual solid official documentation for both clips. So... yeah... where is it?
 
This whole thing is downwind of that Danish fish market. Footage is clearly not from the Nimitz event; too many people knew some big announcement was forthcoming; the so-called revelation about Bigelow's hanger 18 if true, would violate classified need-to-know information; the pilot was too pumped, primed and ready to trot out for the networks—talking points in hand; the PR campaign around the story is too well timed and slick; the MSM has uniformly reacted in lockstep w/ almost uniform acceptance and tone; there has been absolutely no push back from the DoD which indicates complete official approval ahead of time. This whole thing smacks of a well-orchestrated PR move that is tied into a working relationship between TTSA, Bigelow, the alphabet agencies and certain members of the UFO community. It's way too contrived for my tastes and I have every right to be cautious.
I don't recall where UFOs & counterintelligence walked hand in hand with positive results for the UFO community.
 
Does anyone find it strange that this is the only topic Donald Trump won't tweet about?

Seems out of character.
 
Last edited:
Lost in the field of dreams?

Complex field of dreams.

DOD (Defense) admits it ran a secret UFO investigation but then the DIA (Information) tries to backtrack. DIA is part of USD (Intelligence), so is the NSA which are both 'Combat Support Agencies'.

So when they say the DOD admits ... it means it had a program but doesn't disclose it's purpose ?


800px-US_Defense_Agencies.png
 
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is way up there in the food chain. Just under the NSA.

Why it is that Luis Elizondo and/or Christopher Mellon would not consider what you have presented before going in front of the American public in releasing the video?

You are aware of Christopher Mellon and his prior role in the military.
 
Did someone here post the link to this interview with Grant Cameron or did I pick it up at ATS? I just watched it and would like to know how others here respond to Cameron's claims, as a whole or in part.

 
Did someone here post the link to this interview with Grant Cameron or did I pick it up at ATS? I just watched it and would like to know how others here respond to Cameron's claims, as a whole or in part.


little to no comments on GC

I posted on page 15 with a link to a Dec 23 (UT post date ) CG and UT post.

 
A couple of questions someone can hopefully clarify to me:

Paco Chierici, the author of that Fightersweep article, has stated on Twitter that:


What report? Is he talking about the leaked log or something else?

Then in the Nimitz report they state that the jets were originally launched at 1200 EST and re-vectored towards the ufo at 1230. EST is UTC-5.
2004 USS NIMITZ PILOT WRITTEN REPORT

That event log however specifies that the re-vectoring happened 1410L and the ufo was spotted at 1430L and it also mentions "RAVEN" seeing a couple of boats at 1415L and 1430L.
Fighter Jet UFO Footage: The Real Deal, page 9

Those are times, right? What timezone are they? According to this it would be "Lima Time Zone", which means military timezone that is UTC+11, which is nowhere close to that sighting and can't be right:
List of military time zones - Wikipedia

That page also mentions "Letter "L" is commonly mistaken for "local"", so would that be PST then? Which is UTC-8, which is still far apart. That Fightersweep article only mentions the time the next crew (that took the FLIR video) launched, that was 1500. I'm guessing TTSA messed up something with the timezones. Have you seen specified times on other sources?
 
There have been a few new postings @ METABUNK
Post #84 may interest you.

2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR footage


Raytheon is conditionally taking advantage of the video release

Raytheon: The UFO spotter - Navy pilots used Raytheon tech to track a strange UFO

"Even so, the video images are not definitive proof that the jet pilots were chasing an actual UFO.
To really be sure, we would need the raw data,” said Dr. Steve Cummings, vice president of Technology Development and Execution at Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems. "Visual displays alone are not the best evidence.”


 
Last edited by a moderator:
There have been a few new postings @ METABUNK

Looks like they are mostly concentrating on finding discrepancies on estimated sizes, accelerations etc. which I wouldn't expect to be too accurate in the first place. After all, it happened more than a decade earlier, and they no doubt had a lot in their minds at the time. The same of course applies to exact times, but what sort of accuracy should we expect from an event log, assuming it is real and original?

I didn't see much of interest there except for that link to an article where that production company in Germany denies having anything to do with the clip, except that it was on their server. And that was what I already expected, as the video was said to have been in YouTube and circulated in various forms among some. Most likely that just happened to be one of those places, so either someone there had some contacts where they got it from, it was copied from YouTube by some employee, or their site contained some kind of public uploading functionality, as the op of that ATS thread claimed. Interestingly both of those ATS posters who had access to that data tried to make it clear that the production company had nothing to do with it. So maybe they were connected to it somehow. It would be also interesting to know if they got the event log from the same place or somewhere else. And also what that PowerPoint document was that they were talking about.

It seems that the confusion about who shot that video and what it actually shows also continues in the media and elsewhere. As far as I understand it, the "Source" in that TTSA report is Jim Slaight, who was then the pilot of the plane that looked at the events higher up, made notes afterwards and was furious colleagues didn't take the event seriously enough. OK-1 is his WSO. OK-2 is David Fravor who made a copy of his gun tape afterwards (that would be interesting to see). OK-3 would be his WSO. All of them then were in the same room discussing about it. I hope Fravor's WSO also speaks out at some point, because he would have seen the same up close.

OK-4 and OK-5 are the pilot and WSO from a jet that took off sometime after (among others), and the first one that had FLIR on board, and that was the one that took the video. So the video was made well after the events Fravor described. But that is not in the log, right?

So if I got this about right and the information that is given in those documents is mostly true, there probably isn't much significant additional FLIR videos but there might be some very interesting gun tape footage, if only someone dares to make it public, and if that was actually directed towards the object at right times. And of course the radar recordings would be very valuable, at least if some outside experts could investigate them, but that probably won't happen considering how sensitive the data about those radar capabilities probably is. So I'm afraid we can't expect to get that much more real evidence even if the investigation reports were published.
 
Raytheon is conditionally taking advantage of the video release

Yes, that one is interesting, and I saw it earlier somewhere. I wonder if they could actually get access to that raw data they would need if they just tried. Or maybe they do, but we probably wouldn't hear about that. After all, they are an important instrument supplier and it could be valuable information for both of those parties to understand how that instrument works in those circumstances and if they could identify some issues that may cause incorrect results and so on.
 
I decided to check what the size estimates were as they seemed to be the kind of details those at Metabunk are looking at, and based on the latest postings there, they seem to have had confusion who was who in which document (Mick for example thought Kurth was "Source"). Someone there has now posted similar understanding about the sources a bit later I did here. Looks like they also may not take into account how the different documents contain estimates from several different people at different altitudes:

Fightersweep article:

"Cheeks" Kurth in a Hornet, flying above 10K estimated whitewater area of water to be about 50-100 meters.
Dave thought the whitewater was the size of a 737 when he was above 20K, and the tic-tac to be fighter-sized or about 46 feet.

TTSA report:

"Source" (=Jim?), who stayed higher up, estimated turbulent water to be approximately 60x80 feet and the object to be 30-40 feet.

Event log:

One of the pilots (doesn't specify which one) described whitewater area resembling downed airline and to be much larger than a submarine. Log indicates jets were above 24K then. Object was described to be 25-30 feet.

I don't see much discrepancies there when you take that into account. Even less if you consider those estimates about that area of water may not be about the dimensions of some object but just an area that has turbulence for whatever reason, which can have variance in size depending on when you happened to look at it. Estimates of speed and acceleration are of course even harder if you don't have clear reference points or instruments to measure it.

Btw. The O'Hare ufo was estimated by different eye witnesses to be 22-88 feet in diameter, which also shows how much estimates vary even in a case where those how saw it were supposedly much closer to it and each other. Interestingly in these two cases the estimates overlap just like the descriptions of a roundish mostly featureless object hovering silently without any visible propulsion and shooting straight up with very high speed. So if it was a real object in both of those cases, is there any reason it couldn't be the same?
 
A couple of questions someone can hopefully clarify to me:

Paco Chierici, the author of that Fightersweep article, has stated on Twitter that:


What report? Is he talking about the leaked log or something else?

Then in the Nimitz report they state that the jets were originally launched at 1200 EST and re-vectored towards the ufo at 1230. EST is UTC-5.
2004 USS NIMITZ PILOT WRITTEN REPORT

That event log however specifies that the re-vectoring happened 1410L and the ufo was spotted at 1430L and it also mentions "RAVEN" seeing a couple of boats at 1415L and 1430L.
Fighter Jet UFO Footage: The Real Deal, page 9

Those are times, right? What timezone are they? According to this it would be "Lima Time Zone", which means military timezone that is UTC+11, which is nowhere close to that sighting and can't be right:
List of military time zones - Wikipedia

That page also mentions "Letter "L" is commonly mistaken for "local"", so would that be PST then? Which is UTC-8, which is still far apart. That Fightersweep article only mentions the time the next crew (that took the FLIR video) launched, that was 1500. I'm guessing TTSA messed up something with the timezones. Have you seen specified times on other sources?

Im assuming the report is the ones doing the rounds and of which there is a copy at TTSA.

The comments section is a gold mine though. From 6 months ago

I went to flight school in Pensacola with CDR Fravor's WSO on this flight. (I won't say his name on here.) Heard this story through the Hawkeye grapevine not long after it happened. We were down the hall from VAW-117. I would have thought it was BS if I didn't know the WSO that told the story. Most level headed guy you'll ever know. Smart as hell. He described it as a giant, flying Tylenol that could stop on a dime from super sonic speeds.

I was on board the USS Princeton (2001-2005) when this all went down. We actually went to GQ (General Quarters) for about 4 hours as all if this was going down. I've been telling everyone about this even, but have gotten the usual "yeah right" look when I tell them about it. I saw the video after it happened, but didn't think that it would somehow make it's way to the public, considering all of the "security" that surrounded the issue.

Crazy how the world turns, isn't it?!

Thank you for giving this event life! I no longer look like a tin foil hat wearing idiot!
 
Im assuming the report is the ones doing the rounds and of which there is a copy at TTSA.

Do you mean this one:
2004 USS NIMITZ PILOT WRITTEN REPORT

It definitely isn't that, as that seems to be a report of the interview TTSA had with "Source" (Jim?) on September 7, 2017. I wonder if they did that report on purpose to look like an actual navy report from years back, as I certainly mistook it as such when I first looked at it.

The comments section is a gold mine though. From 6 months ago

That's interesting, so that poster you quoted knows just the person I would like to hear from, Fravor's WSO (OK-3). Hopefully someone has managed to contact him. At least according to that poster he supports Fravor's testimony.
 
Back
Top