Pentagon UFO Study - Media Monitoring

[Thomas R Morrison]

I don't think the military has half of what you think it does

Of course they do. We have official documentation of military projects utilizing ground-based phototheodolite and cinetheodolite equipment at defense research facilities like White Sands Missile Proving Ground dating back to the late 1940s: Project Twinkle and Project Sign were among the earliest projects that collected photo and film footage of UFOs. None of that evidence has ever been released, but executive summaries were leaked and we still have them in the National Archives. Bruce Maccabee wrote up a brief summary of these projects here:
NCP-12: The White Sands Proof - Maccabee

Subsequent projects involved outfitting military interceptor jets with an arsenal of photographic and film equipment and other scientific instrumentation for the express purpose of collecting UFO images and data for scientific analysis. I don’t recall the names of those projects, but I’m sure that Chris or Gene, or John Greenwald, or Richard Dolan could name them and provide the relevant timelines.

The early military UFO research projects remain among our best sources of information about this kind of thing because the UFO cover-up policy didn’t really kick in until the 50s and 60s.

And there are lots of anecdotal accounts where we know that high-resolution images and film were taken of UFO sightings by the military, such as Gordon Cooper’s account of personally seeing the negatives of the close proximity film footage that his team took of a UFO landing at Edwards Air Force Base in 1957 (naturally that footage was never released to the public):
Astronaut Gordon Cooper Talks About UFOs on Paranormal Borderline

I’m not a ufologist so I don’t keep records of all of the photos and films and radar cases where we know that the military collected high-quality data from UFO events, but professional ufologists can rattle off long lists of that stuff; I’m sure that Stanton Friedman and Kevin Randle know dozens of examples by heart.

If this was just another brilliant daylight sighting of a UFO, and everyone in the military knew it, and they have heaps of crystal clear gun camera footage, etc., then there would be no need for a working group to look at identifying these objects.

I’m sorry, but that’s absurd: of course you’d collect as much data as possible regarding unidentified aerial devices that easily outperform your top fighter jets. Because until you figure out all of their superior technological capabilities, that intelligence is your best and only opportunity for analyzing and understanding and eventually replicating that technology. If anything, you’d increase the precision of your data collecting efforts to glean the best data possible as our technology advances.

What sources can you point to that support your contention that the military has high resolution gun camera footage of this object? Has anyone said such? I am not aware of this.

I assume that they have good clear footage from Cmdr Fravor’s gun camera because we know that the F/A-18F Super Hornet is equipped with such a camera, and he was quite close to the object. But I could be mistaken – he was piloting a jet that had just undergone significant maintenance (this was revealed in the new 13-page report that came out today) and he was on a training exercise at the time, so his camera might not have been active.

Frankly, I am so tired of hearing, "OMG IF WE SHOW THE PHOTO OF THE CRAFT, THEN SUDDENLY NORTH KOREA WILL KNOW HOW TO BUILD A SUPER LETHAL "FIELD PROPULSION DELIVERY SYSTEM"....they can't even feed themselves, they are doing anything notable with a DOD authenticated and released photograph of a metal tic-tac. So that objection falls flat, just like the claim, "THERE WILL BE UNREST AND PANIC IF THE PEOPLE SEE THE PHOTO OF THE UFO..." Most people will say, "hmmm, that's cool, when are the Kardashians on."

Cool your jets – I was only using North Korea as a glib example of a nuclear power that we can't trust (and obviously if they can build a nuclear warhead then their relative poverty isn't preventing them from engaging in advanced military R&D programs): the point is obviously valid and applicable to all of our nation’s adversaries (and competitors). We don’t release any data to the public that our adversaries could benefit from; that’s National Security Policy 101.

Regardless, I provided pilot photos because almost all commerical airline pilots have personal cameras on them these days. Just go on Instagram and type in pilot photography....you will see thousands of photos from inside the cockpit of multiple types of aircraft, military and civilian, so again, where are the pictures? We get nothing. Even if the government has all the "good stuff" what about the thousands of pilots in the sky for millions of hours every year. Where are their photos? We get 1 pixel moving on a FLIR screen...WOW.

You’ve totally missed the point: it’s extremely difficult to get high-rez images of relatively small objects at typically miles of distance especially when they’re moving erratically - but interceptor jets are equipped with the multi-million-dollar imaging/tracking camera units to capture such imagery. And the object in the Nimitz case exhibited optical and radar cloaking of some kind, exacerbating the problem tremendously. Try getting clear footage of an ordinary high-altitude jet with an iPhone – I expect that the best you’ll get is blurry wiggle-cam footage of a smudge in the sky.

Also, pilots are loathe to even mention a UFO sighting, because they get benched if they do. The pilot in the Japan Airlines case was put behind a desk, and as far as I knew he never piloted another plane. And they had radar confirmation of the enormous object that they saw at a distance of over 7 miles. When Apple releases an iPhone that can take clear video of an object over 7 miles away, just lemme know so I can run out and buy one...but I don't expect to live long enough to see that technology happen.

 

[Constance]

Even if the government has all the "good stuff" what about the thousands of pilots in the sky for millions of hours every year. Where are their photos? We get 1 pixel moving on a FLIR screen...WOW.

I think you need to read the early history of the modern ufo phenomena, beginning in the early 1940s, and follow it through recent books about ufos/uap sighted by pilots of all countries during WWII, during the Korean War, and in subsequent US military operations in other countries. See NICAP for pdfs of books written by Donald Keyhoe and others during the 1940s and 50s for references to knowledge concerning gun-camera footage obtained in that period, and subsequent research concerning JANAP and other regulations suppressing civilian and military pilot reporting. And see NARCAP's reports and articles concerning the ways and means by which civilian and military witnesses in the air and on the ground experiencing close encounters have been continually discouraged, to this day, from speaking about them publicly and even privately.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Here is a link to NARCAP's lengthy analysis of the event at O'Hare. I think you will find it responsive to many of your and others' questions here:

http://www.narcap.org/files/NARCAP_TR-10.pdf

That’s excellent – thank you Constance. A slew of witnesses and a 128-page report, and nobody has come forward with a photograph, although multiple witnesses saw people taking photos: maddening.

So well-reasoned as usual, Thomas. As for earlier, closer-up, gum-camera footage of ufos obtained by scrambled military jets pursuing them in the early decades of the modern ufo phenomenon, ufo researchers have long known that images were obtained by the Air Force and that these have never been released to the public.

Thank you – I figured that if I knew about this withheld evidence, then it must be fairly common knowledge among ufologists.

It’s kinda fascinating that the recent video releases are the first time I know of, where the DoD or the DIA or whoever, has authorized the release of this kind of evidence (as blurry and brief and ambiguous as it is).

My own most vivid ufo sighting took place in November 1991, first observed by my then-four-year-old daughter sitting in the window seat of a Delta plane flying along the western shore of Lake Michigan about 25 miles north of Chicago. We were sitting over the right-side wing and I was reading a story to her when she grabbed my arm and pointed out the window to a very large, brilliant white light that appeared to be stationary just off the wingtip. As I looked out the window I saw what had excited her, and observed it as we seemed to pass it by while it hung or hovered in the air. The light was intensely brilliant and appeared to be encased behind an extremely thick lens of glass within a square enclosure rounded at the edges. I could not see anything extending beyond or around this object. My first thought was a lighthouse, out in the water offshore of Kenosha or Racine, Wisconsin, but I later realized that could not be the case given the cruising altitude of the plane.

I don't know, of course, the distance of this object from the plane. I can report that it appeared to be close to the wingtip since it filled the cabin window. The only other thing I can report is that it was by then near 10 or 11 pm, a clear, cold, and dark night, and that after the plane landed in Milwaukee the entire crew were standing at the exit door silently observing the faces of the passengers as we disembarked. There was no conversation, no friendly chit-chat between the pilots and navigator and the passengers. I sensed that they were interested in and concerned about any emotional reactions visible on our faces, which suggests to me that they were aware of this close encounter.

Fascinating. The crew was definitely aware of the event; the situational awareness of the pilots is always at least as sharp as that of the passengers. What a unique sighting – I’ve never seen a description like that before. I’d love to see some kind of visual representation of what you saw; it’s kind of difficult to visualize. It seems that a great deal of sightings involve AAVs that we can fairly easily comprehend as technological devices, but some – like yours, appear to involve extravagantly advanced technology that’s very difficult (if not impossible) to comprehend. I wonder if your daughter recalls that sighting. I reckon that’s unlikely, since most people don’t recall much before the age of 5 or 6, but it would be neat if you two shared that memory.

I never get tired of hearing the descriptions of anomalous sightings. Most of the people who take a serious interest in this subject seem to have observed sightings that are clearly highly anomalous in nature.

Some people seem to think that the ETH is somehow mundane, but when I hear accounts like yours, I try to envision the kind of civilization that would create something like what you’ve described, and my mind boggles at the possibilities…

 

[Realm]

I checked back some earlier sources, which have been already discussed here earlier if I recall, to find out the who/when/what of that Nimitz report. It seems it was written in 2009 by a navy analyst on behalf of the AATIP, written in blank paper as that apparently made it possible to send it to BAASS and their subcontractors. And apparently the whole investigation was "unofficial". It seems to me the whole AATIP was mostly unofficial...

I added the details with sources to my blog post: The 2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO Incident - Executive report

The worst but at the moment still unconfirmed part is that this report may basically be all there is. Paco Chierici told me earlier he had read a NIS report that concluded just before he wrote his article in 2015, but I'm suspecting there has been some misunderstanding and he is talking about the same report. DoD has classified some version of that report, but it seems very likely it is essentially just the same.

So it seems that:
- The FLIR video is basically worthless and doesn't really display the sort of hovering and acceleration it was claimed to show.
- The whole radar part is now iffy thanks to the details given in that report.
- That report didn't mention the navy event log, so it doesn't confirm it's authenticity (if that unofficial unmarked report can confirm anything), and also contradicts it in some important details like the location of the incident, which almost certainly is wrong in this new report.
- The way this report was published seems to be more like a leak than an official release, so nothing is official.
- It seems unlikely there will be any more footage of the incident, at least anything that would be worth much.
- The reported submarine weapons tests "during the period of and in the vicinity of the AAV sightings" casts a whole lot of doubt to this incident.

Basically this has turned into a rather typical UFO incident. We are pretty much left with just the eyewitness testimonies and the key question is the accuracy of those testimonies. If the closest distance to the object was 4000-5000 feet (as reported in the event log), how much detail they could have really seen with their eyeballs only, if that's basically all they used?

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

Brother @Realm! You will be pleased to know that I just linked to your Parabunk analysis of the GoFast video in my appeal to Peter Levenda on the TTSA Facebook group page in the hopes that he might use whatever insider’s influence he has to get those clueless bozos to acknowledge and then correct their embarrassing errors in the assessment of the object’s altitude and speed.

========================

TOM MELLETT posted on the TTSA Facebook group page:
———————
I made the following appeal to Peter Levenda on the TTSA FB group in the hopes that he might use his influence to encourage TTSA to acknowledge and then correct their mistaken calculations and judgments about the GoFast video released in early March.

TOM MELLETT:
Peter, you wrote this in response to someone on your FB page who was impatient about the slow pace of release of videos etc. from TTSA. I hope you don’t mind me copying it here for the TTSA group because I believe that you an help the situation that has developed since the release almost 3 months ago of the GoFast video.

PETER LEVENDA:
“Every release requires careful coordination by a number of parties. It won’t help anyone if the project gets shut down due to carelessness. They are doing this as quickly as they can within the parameters they have to respect. They have already revealed a great deal, and will continue to do so. That's more than we have had to work with in a long time.”

TOM MELLETT:
Peter, what you express above is a nice theoretical ideal for the dissemination protocols of TTSA, but unfortunately, in practice, it really appears to the public that no one is minding the store at TTSA. A case in point is the release back in early March, of the third video, the one called GoFast.

TTSA still claims that the object is close to the ocean surface and moving at a high rate of speed, perhaps 360 knots. However, I know of 5 or 6 different people who have done independent calculations from the video data that fairly well agree with each other that the object is actually at an altitude of 13,000 feet and it is not moving fast at all. In fact it could either be stationary like a weather balloon, only buffeted by the winds at that altitude or else a migratory bird like an albatross moving around 30 knots.

Yet here we are almost 3 months since the release of the video and TTSA has still failed even to acknowledge their mistaken judgments about the object let alone correct their mistake.

I would like you to look into the matter and if you are convinced, I wonder if you might use your influence with the folks at TTSA to rectify this situation, because, as it stands now, the damage to the reputation of TTSA as a conscientious scientifically based operation is ongoing and shows no signs of turning around.

I provide you with one website here, made by someone I know from the Paracast forums who has analyzed the GoFast video in depth and shows the errors in TTSA’s calculations and conclusions.

As a retired high school math and physics teacher, I can verify his math is correct and the actual problem is one I would assign my students at 11th grade Pre-Calculus level, as it involves just fairly straightforward trigonometry to figure out the object’s altitude and speed.

Analysis of TTSA 2015 Go Fast UFO video

 

[Realm]

Brother @Realm! You will be pleased to know that I just linked to your Parabunk analysis of the GoFast video in my appeal to Peter Levenda on the TTSA Facebook group page in the hopes that he might use whatever insider’s influence he has to get those clueless bozos to acknowledge and then correct their embarrassing errors in the assessment of the object’s altitude and speed.

I think it's part of their business model they won't acknowledge or correct any of their misinformation. Here's their track record so far:

- It took them ages to acknowledge that party balloon fiasco, and even after that Elizondo tried to explain they did it on purpose.
- The highlight of that announcement event was a badly distorted version of the Nimitz event, even when they had a more accurate source, which they failed to name properly.
- The Nimitz video wasn't just leaked years earlier, but that version actually is of higher quality, since the TTSA has re-compressed it to crap for adding their own advertisement, like all their videos.
- None of the videos display what the TTSA claims. The "high acceleration" of the Nimitz clip seems to be caused by the camera alone. Gimbal "aura" is similarly a common artifact, as seems to be the rotation. Go Fast is nothing but a comedy of errors, a testament of their inability to perform any sort of investigation on the videos before releasing them.
- The Nimitz pilot written report still states Princeton is CVL-23, which was a carrier that sunk during WW2.
- Everything indicates the videos were not even released by the Pentagon, instead Elizondo just thought so after they had went through partial processes.
- They have marketed their videos with the "Chain of Custody" documentation, and they still haven't shown any. Given the above, no surprise there.
- Their financial filings have now confirmed earlier suspicions that their investment counters were displaying inflated numbers for both the amount of money and number of investors, misleading their investors on their popularity.
- In practice, the whole TTSA seems to be just an entertainment company, and the money they have gathered from gullible investors seems to go to DeLonge for paying his earlier entertainment related losses, and a huge chunk of it already goes just to the process of collecting the money.
- Do I even need to mention that Rogan interview?

Since they have done little of any real value, those who want to defend them tend to emphasize the benefits of a renewed media interest on this topic. But since none of that is really deserved, that's pretty short-sighted. In the long run, all of this will have just a negative impact on the credibility of the subject, even if it takes time for the media and public at large to realize what actually happened.

On a personal note, before the TTSA, I thought there's a relatively good chance at least one of the UFO cases could be the real deal. Now, I view that highly unlikely. This whole debacle has been an eye-opener, as it has revealed how the so called ufology or ufologists generally work. TTSA has turned out to be just an example of that, not an exception. The so called best evidence for UFOs is really more like a comedy of errors and fairy tales fueled by suppression and denial of information that reveals them as such. The Coyne Incident I ended up explaining was similarly just one example, not an exception.

As I have stated here, I have considered the Nimitz case to be the best I have seen, and the report that was just released made it highly questionable as a whole. I don't believe it had anything to do with aliens. Once again the problem isn't evidence that couldn't be explained with something mundane, but rather the lack of evidence and information that would enable us to determine what they actually saw. That report makes it quite clear it wasn't actually properly investigated.

 

[MrBeliever]

In hindsight, it would make sense if the videos turned out not to be "real" UFO videos, but the next best thing they were able to secure without running into classification roadblocks. They probably figured they would never be allowed to release "real" videos, but in order to accomplish their mission of getting the attention of civilian governments, they used declassified videos that were indistinguishable from true footage and unclassified reports that supposedly mirror data from real classified reports.

In other words, we're not looking at authentic UFOs; we're looking at the idea of authentic UFOs.

Someone on ATS collected previous messages about the Nimitz event:

The Nimitz story in the former OMF forum, page 1

Something not seen in videos or the 13 page report is this description of numerous craft dropping 28000 feet into the water, then back up to their previous altitude like yoyos. This would explain the claims of transmedium travel, which seemed to be one of the 5 observables required for a "signature match."

 

[Sentry]

MrBeliever, check that ATS post now with the update. The 2010 leaker, "theseer" (the see'r, as in see-er or sighter) has been identified as Kevin Day.
Apparently, he thinks there was some kind of reality-altering aspect to the events, and he depicted them in a science fiction story.

 

[MrBeliever]

Thanks for mentioning the update, I guess this is still breaking. It looks like this Kevin Day person is claiming to be one of the first radar operators to spot the anomalous objects but the first to mention it, causing other operators to suddenly realize or remember they had tracked unusual objects that day.

He also speaks of recording devices that are supposed to record voice data to optical disks (CD), and noticing the event cues were there (people pressing voice comms buttons to speak) but audio failed to record.

It wasn't clear before if it's human brains getting accessed and minds being controlled or if the equipment itself is being hacked, or both... But this particular testimony would point at both.

Interesting how this info was available for a while as well... I wonder how many more undiscovered Easter eggs are lying around...

 

[Ezechiel]

If this ‘tictac’ is the real nuts and bolts deal then shouldn’t it serve as a baseline from which you build on? What’s going on?

The information is legit DOD/DIA what more can you ask for ? why is the disclosure of a game-changing phenomena encapsulated in a mercantile operation like TTSA ?

The report is clear: No nation on earth has crafts that can emulate the demonstrated displacement capabilities of the ‘tictac’ on the video.

I like the torpedos on Stormy Daniels but sheesh?! Shouldn’t this be on page 1 screaming ‘national security issue’ instead?

Amazing lol

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

If this ‘tictac’ is the real nuts and bolts deal then shouldn’t it serve as a baseline from which you build on? What’s going on?

The information is legit DOD/DIA what more can you ask for ?

I'm with you on this - here we have a DIA/DoD/Pentagon program that had access to the most sophisticated instrumentation readings and eyewitness testimony available through the most advanced detection systems and the most reliable experts on the planet, and they've reached the same conclusion that we have: we're not alone.

And yet we have the cynical, petulant infants complaining that it's still not enough. When will it ever be enough for these people? Never. And that's my point - such people will never be convinced, because they don't want to accept the truth that we're not the most advanced civilization in our galaxy. I don't know if it's fear, or arrogance, that prohibits them from accepting the crystal clear testimony of our top military fighter pilots like Cmdrs. Fravor and Slaight. But here's the thing - if you're looking for reasons to reject the truth, then you'll always find excuses. No amount of evidence ever achieves 100% certainty - "proof" is a subjective standard, not an objective one. That's why physicists set scientific standards like the 5-sigma probability standard for new discoveries. The ufo phenomenon passed the 5-sigma mark decades ago, in my estimation. But the myopic and bull-headed cynics want 100% irrefutable proof. That's an unreasonable standard. It reminds me of the people who deny climate change because "only" 97% of all climate scientists agree: that remaining 3% doesn't consist of some supergenius minority that sees beyond the scientific consensus, that 3% consists of idiots and shills. And yet that's all it takes to convince the people who don't want to accept the evidence.

why is the disclosure of a game-changing phenomena encapsulated in a mercantile operation like TTSA ?

Because any sustainable orchestrated attempt at disclosure/confirmation is going to take effort, and money to fund that effort. TTSA provides the vehicle to raise that money, so it's the most viable path forward that they could see. We live in a capitalist economy, for better or worse, so this approach provides the necessary capital. By all indications, that's all there is to it.

The report is clear: No nation on earth has crafts that can emulate the demonstrated displacement capabilities of the ‘tictac’ on the video.

Well, the Nimitz case in all honesty is just one more piece in the puzzle. We've had compelling radar-visual and multiple witness cases for decades - we've just had very little in the way of official recognition of this phenomenon until now because of the obvious cover-up policy. The alleged Tic-Tac footage we've seen was from a subsequent event to the Cmdr. Fravor intercept (it was later later that afternoon iirc), and it's far from conclusive on its own merits. But one has to take a broader view of all the evidence to reach a reasonable conclusion, and cynics with OCD are often incapable of making global assessments of a large and diverse body of data. They want one air-tight case. But no one case is 100% air-tight.

We're apparently dealing with an advanced alien intelligence with the technology to conduct covert operations in our airspace: so of course our data will be imperfect: they want it that way. So that gives the cynics a way out. But anyone who can assess the seven decades of eerily consistent performance characteristics of these exotic alien devices, can see that we're dealing with a real, physical phenomenon.

Shouldn’t this be on page 1 screaming ‘national security issue’ instead?

Yes we're clearly facing an issue of supreme national security significance. Again and again we've seen that our best defenses are vastly outmatched by these intrusions into our airspace. And if a single one of the abduction cases is real, then none of us are ever really safe from this threat.

Either way, we have more than ample evidence of a phenomenon that demands a large and unbiased scientific analysis to determine the capabilities and the intentions of these intruders. They don't seem to have violent/hostile intentions, but the question is far too important to ignore.

 

[withoutlimits09]

"[They] had access to the most sophisticated instrumentation readings and eyewitness testimony available through the most advanced detection systems and the most reliable experts on the planet"

Example of sophisticated instrumentation documenting the UFO:

That's it folks, the best evidence the US military can buy. Sophisticated equipment, absolutely no way to suggest it could be anything but alien....

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

"[They] had access to the most sophisticated instrumentation readings and eyewitness testimony available through the most advanced detection systems and the most reliable experts on the planet"

Example of sophisticated instrumentation documenting the UFO:

That's it folks, the best evidence the US military can buy. Sophisticated equipment, absolutely no way to suggest it could be anything but alien....

Wait! That object! What is it? A tic-tac? A weather balloon? An albatross! No, now I see what it is: it’s Harvey Weinstein wanking into a potted plant! (From the back of course!)

 

[withoutlimits09]

Wait! That object! What is it? A tic-tac? A weather balloon? An albatross! No, now I see what it is: it’s Harvey Weinstein wanking into a potted plant! (From the back of course!)

I googled some of the 1st photographs ever taken, and THEY show more detail than the military's "sophisticated" imaging systems...cameras back then were made out of virtual shoeboxes.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

"[They] had access to the most sophisticated instrumentation readings and eyewitness testimony available through the most advanced detection systems and the most reliable experts on the planet"

Example of sophisticated instrumentation documenting the UFO:

That's it folks, the best evidence the US military can buy. Sophisticated equipment, absolutely no way to suggest it could be anything but alien....

I googled some of the 1st photographs ever taken, and THEY show more detail than the military's "sophisticated" imaging systems...cameras back then were made out of virtual shoeboxes.

Like I said before: the three video clips that we've seen were declassified by the military for public release because they have no intelligence value, and they've almost certainly been significantly derezzed to prevent our adversaries from knowing the full imaging capabilities of our defense systems (that info is classified). So no, we're not going to see any of the up-close or high-rez footage of unidentified devices that can vastly outperform our state-of-the-art jet interceptors.

The people working for the AATIP have security clearances, so they've seen the complete full-length videos at full resolution, and they've probably seen the radar evidence in some cases as well, and they based their findings on all of that. If you want to see that evidence, then you'll need to get a security clearance and a job with the AATIP or similar program.

And your assessment of the optical capabilities of post-WWII camera technology is ludicrous - we've had advanced optics since the 20s and 30s. By the 40s and 50s consumers could buy modern hand-held 35mm cameras.

The AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR camera pod systems on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet cost $3M/each and they're one of the most sophisticated electro-optical systems ever built.

 

[withoutlimits09]

"The people working for the AATIP have security clearances, so they've seen the complete full-length videos at full resolution, and they've probably seen the radar evidence in some cases as well, and they based their findings on all of that. If you want to see that evidence, then you'll need to get a security clearance and a job with the AATIP or similar program."

This is pure speculation. I have seen zero evidence Elizondo or anyone else in the program has seen high resolution video or images. This is the believer in you speaking, which obviously lacks objectivity. Again, point me to the source that suggests anyone has seen high resolution video of this incident...

The reality is we have one compelling bit of "testimony" in the pilot, and some very underwhelming, but over hyped FLIR footage. Period. That puts this case alongside thousands of others, compelling testimony of some eyewitnesses, but nothing tangible in the way of proof. I started off being fairly impressed with the collective Nimitz case, however, I think the skeptics have shot enough holes in it. It now sits in my gray basket with so many others.

Objectively speaking, this makes the most sense... "- The reported submarine weapons tests "during the period of and in the vicinity of the AAV sightings" casts a whole lot of doubt to this incident."

I would imagine the "water disturbance" that the pilot saw could have been a submarine testing some type of weapons platform. Missiles looks very much like tic-tacs, some even seem to "hover," before taking off like a "bullet out of a gun." What was seen could have been an advanced version of this, minus the exhaust, the inconsistencies chalked up to the well proven fallibility of an eye-witness.

 

[Realm]

I have seen zero evidence Elizondo or anyone else in the program has seen high resolution video or images.

There's none, since ATFLIR resolution is VGA = 640 x 480 = 0.3 megapixels. That's it.

Objectively speaking, this makes the most sense... "- The reported submarine weapons tests "during the period of and in the vicinity of the AAV sightings" casts a whole lot of doubt to this incident."

I would imagine the "water disturbance" that the pilot saw could have been a submarine testing some type of weapons platform. Missiles looks very much like tic-tacs, some even seem to "hover," before taking off like a "bullet out of a gun." What was seen could have been an advanced version of this, minus the exhaust, the inconsistencies chalked up to the well proven fallibility of an eye-witness.

That, or something akin to Harrier, that is thrust vectoring or lift fans that could have caused that disturbance of water.

There's a good chance those high altitude ballistic like radar returns were not actually caused by the same object and some of the sources indicate the visually sighted object wasn't even supersonic. If they only saw it with their eyeballs, and it was something like a mile away even when closest, how much detail could they have actually seen?

Take this 45ft long white hovering stealth delta wing "Tic Tac" from around those times as an example:
Boeing X-32 - Wikipedia

Which details could they have seen from a mile away, let alone from ~20kft altitude for the initial sighting? Is it for example possible to see the surface is smooth, or is it just too far away to see the sort of tile patterns and other small parts it actually has?

 

[Ezechiel]

In essence, DoD with the help of Elizondo and the TTSA are dumping tictacs in cyberspace and traditional media outlets with a ‘have fun with this’ tag. Why did the DoD even bother farting around with an incomplete disclosure like this... entertainment? ...social reaction assessment?

With a 6 month perspective, I’d love to hear how Harry Reid and Bigelow would describe the level of apathy and surprising lack of interest after a stunning revelation like this.

With so much fake news and fired up porn stars floating around, the tictacs got crowded out. ... not to mention fundamental Christians trying to put a lid on the story

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

"The people working for the AATIP have security clearances, so they've seen the complete full-length videos at full resolution, and they've probably seen the radar evidence in some cases as well, and they based their findings on all of that. If you want to see that evidence, then you'll need to get a security clearance and a job with the AATIP or similar program."

This is pure speculation. I have seen zero evidence Elizondo or anyone else in the program has seen high resolution video or images.

Luis Elizondo and Drs. Eric Davis and Hal Puthoff still have the security clearances, and they had the need to know, so they’ve seen all the raw data from the incidents like this that went through the AATIP. We only get incredibly brief and blurry clips because that stuff isn’t designated classified/sensitive - we get the table scraps that have zero intelligence value. This isn’t difficult to understand; the excessive state of military secrecy is a well-known and on-going problem, and one of the key reasons Mr. Elizondo said he went public. But we’ve seen this elsewhere also, like when ODNI James Clapper lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee about the existence of the unconstitutional PRISM program – everything’s a secret these days. We plebes in the public sector only get little glimpses of the truth when something is leaked.

The reality is we have one compelling bit of "testimony" in the pilot, and some very underwhelming, but over hyped FLIR footage. Period. That puts this case alongside thousands of others, compelling testimony of some eyewitnesses, but nothing tangible in the way of proof. I started off being fairly impressed with the collective Nimitz case, however, I think the skeptics have shot enough holes in it. It now sits in my gray basket with so many others.

Yeah like I said there isn’t one case that’s bullet-proof, but the mass of data from the past 70 years is plenty convincing imo. However in this case Cmdr. Fravor could clearly make out the size and shape and the surface quality of the object, and even the band around the middle of that thing. And he saw it depart the area like a bullet, with no observable propulsion signature. That’s good enough for me; I see no reason to disbelieve his testimony.

Objectively speaking, this makes the most sense... "- The reported submarine weapons tests "during the period of and in the vicinity of the AAV sightings" casts a whole lot of doubt to this incident."

I would imagine the "water disturbance" that the pilot saw could have been a submarine testing some type of weapons platform. Missiles looks very much like tic-tacs, some even seem to "hover," before taking off like a "bullet out of a gun." What was seen could have been an advanced version of this, minus the exhaust, the inconsistencies chalked up to the well proven fallibility of an eye-witness.

You’re skipping the part where he chased the thing around in a circle before it took off like a bullet, and then showed up at their CAP point. A squadron commander of one of our top carrier groups, piloting a $70M weapons platform, would know a missile when he saw and chased one. This wasn’t that. Plus the testimony of the radar operators who saw these things dropping out of space and coming to a stop above the water makes a missile explanation farcical.

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

Billy Cox weighs in on the Knappster’s May Sweeps release for his Las Vegas TV audience, but, by golly Brother @Thomas R Morrison , you’re gonna love this part!

http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/15665/hand-remains-hidden/

Tyler Rogoway, the War Zone defense industry reporter who has raised the bar in this field over the past couple of months with stellar FOIA work on two recent U.S. incidents, is unambiguously impressed with the quality of the witnesses and the overall level of detail in the accounting.

“Regardless if you think the AATIP program was totally legit or some type of elaborate misinformation mechanism dreamed up in the darkest corners of the defense-industrial complex,” Rogoway wrote on Tuesday, “during that week in November of 2004, something totally strange did indeed occur. And it didn’t just happen in a blink of an eye, it happened over days, with the object in question being examined by a multitude of the U.S. Navy’s front-line sensors as well as by the human eye of one of the best-trained and reliable observers one can imagine.”

A worthy debate over the provenance of the documents is ongoing. Between now and whenever the authenticity issue is resolved, the military’s characterization of the intruder(s) – “no known aircraft or air vehicle currently in the inventory of the United States or any other foreign nation,” “advanced aerodynamic performance,” “advanced propulsion capability,” and “possibly … a highly advanced capability to operate undersea completely undetectable by our most advanced sensors” – is making an implicit but revolutionary concession: not only can’t we compete with Tic Tac, the thing appears to be mocking our illusions of absolute control.