UFO reported by workers on Off Shore Oil Rig Supply Vessel in the Gulf of Mexico 21 March, 2017

a reply to: tigertatzen

Why do you think such an advanced species should have any weapons? War is for primitive species.

originally posted by: tigertatzen


I suppose that could be a possible scenario, but something tells me that such a vessel wouldn't have the need to escape from anyone. It can slowly rise out of the water without so much as a drip and completely silent, then accelerate in less than a second's time fast enough to disappear entirely from view, but it has to run away from subs or torpedoes?

I totally agree with you, so perhaps it was being chased by something other than subs and torpedoes?

A craft of similar capabilities from another faction? Or they weren't being chased by anyone and just felt like showing off.

a reply to: vinifalou

Don't be ridiculous, even the gods make war and almost everything in nature kills something to survive. The chance of aliens not having weapons is the like the chance of them not having religion...non-existent. Some things are universal and murder is right at the top of the list...

When ever i post on ATS i get watched for weeks after. I can tell you this the craft did not jump to light speed. It opened and closed a wormhole. When your watching such an event you will see what appears to be the craft go shooting off into the atmosphere but in reality its the tunnel of the wormhole closing in on itself making the optical illusion, plus it rarely makes a noise when this happens though sometimes if air is trapped and forced into the wormhole it can be expelled resulting in a pop or rumble similar to a sonic boom. As for the other post about the water not sliding off the craft quite easy to repel water specially as its made up of mainly hydrogen atoms.

Time to feel "watched" again

So after ten pages what do we have? No pics, but that seems to be OK for most people, so forget about pics. The sum total of our evidence is observation by more than five people. What did they see? Something came out of the water and pretty much instantly took off and disappeared. It was a dark color and oval shaped. The Chief Engineer estimated it at over 1000 feet. Since it was oval I assume he met diameter. The whole sighting took about 40 seconds.

That's the sum total of the sighting. On the Hynek Scale this is a CE-1: "Though the witness observes a UFO nearby, there appears to be no interaction with either the witness or the environment." No detail was reported. No port holes. No landing gears. No detail to speak of. Although witness testimony is not always accurate, there is no reason to doubt these five people. The main witness is a Chief Engineer. That means he is an educated person. He is equivalent in rank to a Master (Captain) except his domain is the engines. The other four witnesses were likely able bodied seamen, though we have as yet no details. The Chief Engineer made an attempt to be accurate with his size estimate by referencing a nearby oil rig. He didn't just guess. It's to his credit.

From this, somehow, many people have invoked "aliens." Why they have done this is anathema to the situation. There is no evidence. It seems that the reasoning is something like this: "I did not see anything at all. I just read an account of this on ATS. I don't understand what this was, therefore aliens." And from there we have gone from bad aliens to good aliens, government disclosure, to "I (or my grandmother) saw something like that once." to "The government ought to be protecting us fro these things." I don't understand that either. Why do we need protecting? What have those things done to us?

Although we may very well go another ten pages of abject speculation, if nothing else surfaces from the account, we're really done here. There's nowhere else to go.

originally posted by: schuyler
So after ten pages what do we have? No pics, but that seems to be OK for most people, so forget about pics. The sum total of our evidence is observation by more than five people. What did they see? Something came out of the water and pretty much instantly took off and disappeared. It was a dark color and oval shaped. The Chief Engineer estimated it at over 1000 feet. Since it was oval I assume he met diameter. The whole sighting took about 40 seconds.

Although we may very well go another ten pages of abject speculation, if nothing else surfaces from the account, we're really done here. There's nowhere else to go.

Well, the whole caboodle is all about something surfacing, then flying off...we now know, or at least I now know it's actually being done at least by the humble quad drone, and is under serious consideration not just by in-depth, (pardon the pun) technical researchers as some kind of platform, but indeed is a real consideration by the military who should by now be having real trialling of a considered methodology as here,

ExtractS;
'Think of them as sleeper cells that go dormant for years, waiting for the signal that will send them into action.
This is the high-tech version: unmanned drones that the government plans to plant on the ocean floor, ready to speed to the surface — and beyond — for surveillance, search-and-rescue and other operational support.'
'The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is funding the construction of deep-sea capsules containing dormant aerial drones.'
'However, for all of the advances in sensing, autonomy, and unmanned platforms in recent years, the usefulness of such technology becomes academic when faced with the question, ‘How do you get the systems there?’ '

'DARPA officials declined to comment on the program but did acknowledge awarding 13 Phase 1 contracts to corporations and entities like Lockheed Martin Corporation and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution at the end of fiscal year 2013. Initial awards were anticipated to be between $1.25 and $1.75 million, increasing drastically to $27 million-$30 million for phases two and three. DARPA expects to support at least one major sea test in the Western Pacific in fiscal year 2017.'

Source;
www.stripes.com...

The slightly understated article is over three years old, so what about three years on, and say rather than the Western Pacific for a full-scale test, that could have changed to the relatively calm waters of the GOM as a proof of concept for the platform envisaged from the military's point of view, the scale of which is not given in the story, nor would I expect, even a really full-scale test at this time, still it shows a deal more than a few years of thinking has been going on under the radar.
About the reported sighting, if anyone has watched those humble quad races, they will understand how incredibly fast and stable a platform they are, and how commentators usually lose it afer a few curcuits. I'm sure that is not something lost on any military with big jangly pockets, and a bit of Gung Ho. What about even, the use of a dormant sealed off quad in aircraft/airliners waiting to do their bit in an accident, an airloss at sea like MH370 as given, that can broadcast to locate on TV, whatever?

a reply to: smurfy

OK. You say it was a drone. The guy before me said a UFO opened up a wormhole. Both of you seem to be sure of what it must have been. I don't see how you can get to either place given the observation.

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: BASSPLYR

It's really interesting how some of the descriptions read on MUFON from that same date....they range from "teardrop" to "triangle". The report from the boat stated the giant craft was an oval shape...yet some of the reports from people on shore regarding that same exact sighting from their view called it a triangle. So that's fascinating to me. I wonder if it has some kind of cloaking technology that causes it to look different from other angles...you know, like those pictures that show one object at one angle but from another, it's a totally different object?

I think it's ours too, personally. Not that I reject the idea of it being ET, because I don't at all, but I think it's far more likely that this alleged craft was operated by humans and they certainly didn't just make an oopsie and accidentally pop up all willy nilly in full view of dozens of people like that. I'm betting we'll start having a lot more sightings like this in the very near future.

Are you suggesting some people on shore saw the same object at the same time as the people on the boat saw it? I'm not sure that's possible, if the detail that they were 80 miles out to sea is accurate. I'm fairly certain, at sea level, you cannot see that far, so people from shore would not have been able to see it at the same moment the people on the boat observed it. After the object moved up to a sufficient altitude it would be visible from 80 miles away, but at that distance I don't think anyone would be able to make out any details of it.

Edit: by my calculations, the object would have had to reach an altitude of about 4,500 feet in order for it to be observable from shore 80 miles away. Or it would be visible around sea level if you were on a mountain about 4500 feet of elevation close to shore, 80 miles away. Either way, at 80 miles, I doubt they could see an object that size much less define anything about it's shape/color/etc.

originally posted by: schuyler
a reply to: smurfy

OK. You say it was a drone. The guy before me said a UFO opened up a wormhole. Both of you seem to be sure of what it must have been. I don't see how you can get to either place given the observation.

That's the thing, I'm not saying it was a drone, or even that configuration, I am saying though that it can certainly fit the bill in most areas of the report as demonstrated in the two videos, including experimental research that I first posted.
When I posted them, I had no idea that the likes of Lockheed Martin and others were also on the job, as per the link I gave in my last post, however I do know now, and that makes it a first for me to make a parallel between something observed, and seemingly exotic in a report in real time, and something that has real time similarities, and is actually openly something that the military is working on, and the only caveat is the estimated size, which if you consider a, ' basic quad size' to use that term, would have no comparison at all in size, but might have in something that the military would, or might have a need to use.. but which isn't stated, while still tends the reference toward something relatively small without actually saying so. In any case a possible $25million experimental spend is not exactly peanuts.

a reply to: LiberateEarth

Yes, thanks.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: BASSPLYR

It's really interesting how some of the descriptions read on MUFON from that same date....they range from "teardrop" to "triangle". The report from the boat stated the giant craft was an oval shape...yet some of the reports from people on shore regarding that same exact sighting from their view called it a triangle. So that's fascinating to me. I wonder if it has some kind of cloaking technology that causes it to look different from other angles...you know, like those pictures that show one object at one angle but from another, it's a totally different object?

I think it's ours too, personally. Not that I reject the idea of it being ET, because I don't at all, but I think it's far more likely that this alleged craft was operated by humans and they certainly didn't just make an oopsie and accidentally pop up all willy nilly in full view of dozens of people like that. I'm betting we'll start having a lot more sightings like this in the very near future.

Are you suggesting some people on shore saw the same object at the same time as the people on the boat saw it? I'm not sure that's possible, if the detail that they were 80 miles out to sea is accurate. I'm fairly certain, at sea level, you cannot see that far, so people from shore would not have been able to see it at the same moment the people on the boat observed it. After the object moved up to a sufficient altitude it would be visible from 80 miles away, but at that distance I don't think anyone would be able to make out any details of it.

Edit: by my calculations, the object would have had to reach an altitude of about 4,500 feet in order for it to be observable from shore 80 miles away. Or it would be visible around sea level if you were on a mountain about 4500 feet of elevation close to shore, 80 miles away. Either way, at 80 miles, I doubt they could see an object that size much less define anything about it's shape/color/etc.

I realize I'm quoting myself here I just didn't want to keep editing a post that already has posts after it.

I did a little digging, and I'm not a math wiz, but if I did my calculations right, an object with a 1200 foot diameter would have an angular size of about 0.09 radians at a distance of 80 miles. The angular resolution of the human eye, according to Wikipedia is 0.0003 radians. So even at that distance, the object should actually be visible, so that's my mistake (if my math holds up). But again, due to the distance and the curve of the earth, it would not have been visible at sea level to a person also standing at sea level. They only would've been able to see it as it zipped up into the sky at light speed, once it reached an altitude of about 4,500 feet. And at that speed, I'd have a hard time believing they could make out any details.

Anyone can feel free to check my math, I don't have any math degrees haha

a reply to: face23785

One formula I used gave just under 4000 feet. In the ballpark with yours. Not going to check using another since it's close.

If their speed estimates are accurate, I don't think even a supersonic jet exists that goes that quickly from stop to "disappeared." Gone almost instantly, disappeared in seconds. You can talk about "black projects" all you like, but I still doubt we have a 1,200 foot drone that can go from submersible (and deflect water), is completely silent.. which is a very important, to building instant speed and disappearing as quickly as it did. Even a stealth bomber makes a very noticeable sound taking off.

From this, somehow, many people have invoked "aliens." Why they have done this is anathema to the situation. There is no evidence.

Not really true. If the sighting of a flying craft goes beyond the capabilities of any government on this planet that could make such a thing.. I'd say that's evidence of something at least not from around here. There is often evidence that is dismissed as evidence because.. "black projects." That reasoning is always there for the plucking if all other explanations fail. See the posts above.

If you or others want to believe any government secretly has a craft that can: Be submersible, deflect water, move from full stop to incredibly fast speeds, and do so completely silently.. in a neat little 1,200 foot package.. then by all means go ahead. It's a common excuse for many sightings that can't be explained any other way. I prefer to think of eyewitness testimony, especially from larger groups of people, as pretty compelling evidence.

Of course, more investigation needs to be done on this one.. just saying if there is not another motive, a group hoax, or whatever.. it's a substantial sighting.

a reply to: fleabit

I think some skeptics are too afraid of being wrong to endorse what you are saying, but im with you 100%. Every consideration should be given to human agency, but if that doesnt make sense, alien tech is the next logical line of thinking.

The Westall, Levelland, and Belgium cases are similar in that respect.

a reply to: LiberateEarth

If this is your attempt at an armchair debunk of his statement, it has failed miserably. Took me all of five seconds to read that the sticker says "park rapids lake area chamber of commerce." Another five to find where exactly in Minnesota it is. Do you need me to elaborate further how I "used Google" to do this?

a reply to: Blackhull

Thanks for your answer.

Can you identify the hospital that way as well?

I wonder . . .

Does Mr Springer perchance already know the answer to the mystery and is, in a nice way, "fishing"?

Hmmm, maybe a drone of human manufacture, non-USA?

Just "fishing" myself.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Well the F117 Night Hawk was secret for well over a decade before it came into the white world, and the Military has many black projects from the 70's they still have not declassified, so why do you think they would openly show this one if its way more advanced?

a reply to: Springer

I see that the (former) oil rig captain and founder of gcaptain.com John Konrad has started a thread on their forum about their article going viral, but I see no responses from members regarding this particular sighting.

Too bad.

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: tigertatzen

Why do you think such an advanced species should have any weapons? War is for primitive species.

Defense is not. I would imagine an advanced species would have defensive type weaponry. For example, some less advanced...or primitive if you prefer...species fires a weapon at them, but instead of firing a bigger, more advanced weapon, the would-be target simply reflects the shot and its payload back from whence it came. Elegant.


I'm kind of curious as to why you would believe that other species in the vastness of the cosmos are not warlike in nature as well...that technological advancement automatically reflects peace and enlightenment. I mean, just look at humans. We continue to advance in technology, yet with every new breakthrough, the first thing we do with it is what? Feed the starving? Heal the sick and the dying? No. We first try to figure out if we can weaponize and monetize it. And I doubt that in the entire span of the cosmos, we are the only race that feels the need to behave this way.

Do you think this particular sighting was an actual craft? And do you think if so that it is not of terrestrial origin?