It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Could 'leaked UFO photos taken from US submarine in 1971' prove existence of aliens?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 03:06 PM
a reply to: raedar

You sir, are looking at project Aurora. The B2 Spirit is a relic of the cold war used for carpet bombing missions, this here is the real deal.

edit on 9/7/2015 by L.A.B because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 03:47 PM
OK - I've done bit more digging for a few more snippets and voila:

The second Trepang (SSN-674) was laid down on 28 October 1967 at Groton, Conn., by the General Dynamics Electric Boat Division; launched on 27 September 1969; sponsored by Mrs. Melvin R. Laird, wife of the Secretary of Defense; and commissioned on 14 August 1970, Comdr. Dean Sackett, Jr., in command.
Following local operations out of New London, Conn., Trepang proceeded to the Arctic early in 1971. From 22 February to 22 March, the nuclear attack submarine operated beneath the northern ice cap, conducting extensive tests to provide data for her weapons systems, as well as carrying out scientific experiments concerning the movement, composition, and geological history of the cap itself.

Source :

That seemingly confirms what we already know. That the Trepang was in the Arctic during the late Spring of 1971 conducting tests.

Here are much better quality pictures straight from the original French publication “Top Secret

You will need to click on each of the pictures below to view them in full resolution.

Although I can muddle through the French descriptions (or alternatively resort to Google translate) ,“mon Francais est tres mal” so perhaps one of our members who is more fluent might be able to translate the descriptions.

Does this make things any clearer to anyone?

Someone perhaps with a Naval background?

edit on 9/7/15 by mirageman because: edits

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:01 PM
Thank you very much for this info and the pictures

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:41 PM
a reply to: mirageman

In doing a bit of research on subs and their periscopes, any image I've seen across the board of those of ours and enemies all show graduation marks vertically embedded with the usual, thin crosshair marks. Some also show horizontal marks.

The images from the thread only show the thin marks of the crosshairs, no graduations. Can somebody tell us if the SS Trepang had that simple marking system on its periscope or not. It was of the sturgeon class, by the way.

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:47 PM
So, what I'm asking is, can someone confirm that targeting blimps are designed like zeppelins? Because I can't really imagine an outright balloon making a splash like that. There would have to be some kind of rigid mass inside the balloon to maintain its shape to create a show of weight like that, such as seen with rigid airships like zeppelins.

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:48 PM
Regardless of whether these are photos of comm's blimps, target drones or drop tanks this thread brings to mind tales of underwater UFO bases under Stack Rocks and off Broad Haven in Pembrokeshire from the 'Dyfed Triangle' days, also in the early/mid-70's.

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:19 PM

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: Kapusta

It really does look like the "target practice blimps" mentioned by a previous poster. If you look at them from the top down, as if they were screen grabs from a movie, it looks like these pictures were taken as the blimp was shot down.

Those "red lights" are tiny fires that were started after the blimp got shot.


excellent thinking and eye on detail (as the images sequence was deliberately skewed for some purpose)

the only thing we have in contrast is the 'red dot' on two of the craft photos that are aloft...
You think the red dot is a result of the penetration and resulting burning of the 'skin' of the aircraft from a projectile
... but I propose that the 'red dot' was a residual capture of a LASER-Ray device meant to destroy the aerodynamic of the craft~~~

I propose the US Navy conducted super top-secret test, which was a submarine mounted weaponized LASER,
An underwater lethal LASER Weapon fired shots from a dense water environment instead of a (easier to operate) ground-based LASER defensive weapon...
meant to shoot down moving targets in the sky from a completely camouflaged/ hidden position (think of a launch site for missiles on a coast-line and LASER Ray defenses to shoot those first strike missiles down ASAP after launch ! )

hey this technology was right on the heels of the Moon Landing, JUST 2 Years earlier !

Collaboration is an awesome tool... thanks for the input

edit on th31143648157609392015 by St Udio because: (no reason given)

edit on th31143648169709412015 by St Udio because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:16 PM
a reply to: mirageman

Excellent Post!!

I translated that into, "mon Francais est tres mal", "My French is very bad"...
From an online translator so not sure how correct it actually is... Syx ...
edit on 9-7-2015 by SyxPak because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:17 PM
While the triangle ones do interest me, the last one, when zoomed, looks a heckuva alot like a killer whale.

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:19 PM

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Hey bedlam, you've mentioned the flying sub a few times here at ATS. Another interesting member who doesn't post anymore said that there were devices operated by the navy that go as easily through water as they do air stopping short of leaving the atmosphere. Said these crafts were tied in with submarine operations.

Fancy. I've heard the same things. Heck, I even heard the FS-1 was very very loosely based on a Navy design.

Find it tough to believe, though, along the lines of Star Trek TOS being used to intro concepts of things they already (sort of) had. Like warp drive, or a transporter.

It would be nigh impossible to have something light enough to fly be submersible.

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:24 PM
a reply to: Bedlam

Well, maybe with current non-classified materials and propulsion systems!

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:24 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

It would be nigh impossible to have something light enough to fly be submersible.

Unless weight was irrelevant of course...

cue suspenseful tease....dun dun dun

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:32 PM
a reply to: Bedlam

That's usually when the term "anti-gravity" becomes relevant.

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:31 PM

originally posted by: KAOStheory
I don't see any aliens in those pics, this ain't the History Channel.
I do see advanced technology.
I still fail to see, just as much as others fail to prove, that every flying object that is beyond the observers' understanding is immediately "alien," rather than just "advanced" and "secret."
You don't know everything they know. Never will.
That's a lot less likely our little green - or grey - savior in that ship, than it is our enemy.
Sorry, but can we at least be somewhat realistic here? Ever?

no one here even mentioned aliens.. UFO is the term being tossed around here, because thats what it is.. an unidentified flying object

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 12:03 AM

originally posted by: KAOStheory
a reply to: keenmachine

At the point the camera in the OP went off, and every other time it's been seen, and not.

But you spoke of weapons and fighting and I have to wonder if we have all this great technology why do we never use it in some sort of conflict? what's the point of having it all if it's so secret you can never use it?

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 12:26 AM
a reply to: mirageman

Neat even if it is fake. Jimmy church sucks

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 12:28 AM

originally posted by: Kapusta
The rest of the pics for anyone who is interested in examining them

OP I am not an expert but If i had to take a skeptical guess at it , I would say they look almost "blimp" like .

I wan't to believe , I really do .

I hope someone with more knowledge will come along enlighten us .

thank's for the post

Naval Counter measures. I'll let you think on that.

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 01:03 AM
a reply to: LongishLongo

Except IN THE OP.
Which the OP clarified.
Move on, catch up.

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 04:37 AM
a reply to: Bedlam

Large Surface Area Craft with semi rigid shell of compartmentalised, layered flexible Graphene that can be locally expanded or contracted via charge applied.
Apply charge to expel Air/Water to create a "Vacuum Balloon" derived thrust effect when transiting to Atmosphere.
Reduce charge to make Graphene shell porous to absorb seawater used for ballast when submerging.
Use a combination of boundary layer effect and MHD propulsion to move the vehicle around depending whether it is air or water.

Cant remember the calculations but I'm pretty sure that if you could create a large enough vacuum balloon and launched from sea level it would have better properties in terms of mass V lifting potential than any rocket created to date.
Also semi sure that the vertical thrust figures were significant enough to allow an escape velocity but might be making that part up.

Use the shell's co-incidental properties for a bit of cloaking and maybe even aerodynamic shape morphing and thats a useful asset.

edit on 10-7-2015 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 08:41 AM
If it's just a simple target balloon from 40+ years ago, why would that tech be something people would go out of their way to continue to conceal?

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in