It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

November 2004 off the coast of Calif. Nimitz Battle group and UFO

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Well from a few post on here another desperate ufo group trying to push an event that never happened as if a ufo group would do that


When will they relise that posting BS on the net may be easy but finding out it is BS is just as easy.




posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone


originally posted by: Jukiodone

originally posted by: Iridomyrmex


This was just uploaded today.

I never saw the originally posted vid, so can't say if it's the same one.
Looks like crappy CGI to me.


How did you stumble across this....was it linked somewhere else or did you have it set up on YT alerts??


I did a google search after reading about it and someone had literally just put it up on Youtube.

Which makes it seem even more dodgey.
edit on 24-10-2017 by Iridomyrmex because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 04:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Iridomyrmex
a reply to: Jukiodone


originally posted by: Jukiodone

originally posted by: Iridomyrmex


This was just uploaded today.

I never saw the originally posted vid, so can't say if it's the same one.
Looks like crappy CGI to me.


How did you stumble across this....was it linked somewhere else or did you have it set up on YT alerts??


I did a google search after reading about it and someone had literally just put it up on Youtube.

Which makes it seem even more dodgey.


Lol... yes it does.

Edited:...However, given your explanation there is no reason to disbelieve your story so apologies for any insinuations I might have made.




edit on 24-10-2017 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

Not to worry, as we are due some high quality US government footage of this event, and others, by the DOD.

Don't forget, Mr Delonge, because we sure won't.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Like I mentioned earlier one of the guys on Tom D's new panel gave the web address when he was speaking. Apparently they wanted this particular footage out. I didn't watch it, but guess that is where you will find your answer or the original footage.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

Thanks, I understand the frustration over this haphazard Delonge saga.

I hope for his sake that he's got more than a grainy clip of a fuzzy blob.
edit on 24-10-2017 by Iridomyrmex because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Caver78

From your link: fightersweep.com...




Back on Nimitz after recovery, the four crew headed down to the paraloft to remove their gear. The next four crews from VFA-41 were getting dressed for their training mission to the same area, using the same assigned Lat/Longs as CAP points. Dave and his crewmembers passed on what they had seen to the new guys and reminded them to get tape if they could.

By the time the new crew launched, rendezvoused and checked in with the E-2 for control, it was early afternoon; 1500. The planes separated, with one heading to that same southern CAP location. They were cruising along at 20K and 300kts, max endurance. Again, the jet, radar and also, this time, the FLIR were spanking new and operating perfectly.

The WSO first picked up a contact on the radar around 30nm away while it was operating in the RWS scan mode. He checked the coordinates and it was indeed hovering at their precise CAP point. He attempted several STT locks, to no avail. Later, in the debrief, he explained that he had multiple telltale cues of EA.

The target aspect on the track file was turning through 360 degrees along with some other distinct jamming indications. In the less precise scan mode, the return indicated that the object was, in the WSO’s words, “A few thousand feet below us. Around 15-20K– but hovering stationary.” The only movement was generated by the closure of the fighter to the CAP location.

The WSO resorted to the FLIR pod on board, slaving it to the weak track the RWS mode had been able to generate. He recorded the following sequence to the on-board recorder. Using the IR mode, he was able to lock onto the AAV. It showed up on his screen and on tape as a white object in a black background hovering with no known means.

The IR camera did not detect roiling hot gasses blasting from below the AAV, as they would with a Harrier or a helicopter. It was simply hanging in midair. He switched to the TV mode and was able to again lock the FLIR onto the object while still trying, with no luck, to get a STT track on the radar. As he watched it, the AAV moved out of his screen to the left so suddenly it almost seemed to disappear. On the tape, when it is slowed down, the object accelerates out of the field of view with shocking speed. The WSO was not able to reacquire the AAV either in RWS or with the FLIR.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Not my link, it was provided by C2C to support their story. Just posted links for people who were interested and followed the breadcrumbs backwards.

An aside;
At first glance I'd blow off the Delonge connection since this was all public info previous to him announcing his interest in UFO's. It's possible there's more to be found on aircraft forums, where pilots of the time chatted privately with each other, but that would be a massive search.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: njord
still waiting for Delonge to release the government footage, radar and infrared captures of this event as was promised..


Yep.



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Have seen two online stories now about this alleged ufo video from the USS Nimitz from 2004.

It had some interesting comments from fellow ATS poster Issac Koi who said:


Researcher Isaac Kol lives in London and sometimes posts on the Web forum Above Top Secret. He recently posted: Back in 2007, I tracked the first online copy of the video back to the website of a group of German film students that specialized in creating science fiction movies with lots of special effects (Vision Unlimited). His post also included, “in 2007, I was inclined to reach the tentative conclusion that it was a hoax... I find it very interesting that the current rounds of discussion seem to ignore the provenance of the footage…” Kol told FOX5 in an email, “I don’t claim to have debunked that footage – merely shown that the place that it was originally posted raises red flags pending further evidence.”



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Iridomyrmex



Just FYI for TDL and the TTS/AAS crew, here are some reasons your evidence screams fake:

1. The object is so blurry it could be almost anything.

2. What is the context here - Is the object against water or sky? Is it just hovering or is it being chased? Wasn't there a second object in the water, or is this the one? Conflicting reports make this sketchy.

3. At 0:50 the entire scene (apart from the screen info/reticles/etc.) rotates about 90 degrees, as the object swings simultaneously in a little half-circle. Are they claiming that this was the object's own motion? Because it seems obviously the result of rotating the camera as the object remains fixed.

4. Addendum to 3 - as whole the scene is rotated, the object retains it's apparent horizontal orientation, which would be extremely awkward unless the object was very unfocused and the horizontal "tic-tac" shape is a the result of a squashed camera image of a roundish blob.

5. The other "lateral movements" of the object look very glitchy, at times glitching simultaneously with the switching the camera's of zoom/mode. And what's with all the conveniently climactic zoom/mode switching right at the end, just as we were going to get a good look? Aw man!! But if the camera's glitches and artifacts are this bad, then how are we to trust that any of these "minor lateral movements" were made by the object?

6. Near the end, when the object swipes out of frame and then clumsily scoots off to the left, the motion is as if someone with a mediocre grasp of editing and animation tried to make it look 'organic'.

7. This is the otherworldly object that performed a "series of discrete tumbling maneuvers" to run circles around an F-18? Where's the tumbling? Where is the corresponding radar info?

8. Way too much glitching, fuzziness, artifacts, seems a forced effort to add realism and excitement.


Now get to work guys, surely you can come up with something more realistic!



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Iridomyrmex

Some of the jumpiness at the end of this video is indicative of using a FLIR pod to track an airborne object. It's not designed for that and is not good at it.

At 50 seconds, when the image rotates, I agree, it looks like the camera had to swivel to maintain the image. When it does this, it breaks its own contrast lock. The FLIR pods look for high contrast and attempt to maintain focus on the high contrast whenever possible. When the camera swivels, often, that lock is broken.

When getting close to an object, it becomes harder to keep track on it, since essentially, you're staring though a soda straw, trying to focus on one tiny thing. Also, sometimes, the operator will adjust his/her view to get a clearer picture. Typically, that means switching from White Hot to Black Hot, and switching zoom. The Zoom is not a smooth transition. It's typically a jump from something like 10x to 25x. So it gets fidgety. Even with a dedicated FLIR operator, this is tough.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: cosmania

Thank you for your input, sounds like you've got some experience with this type of camera system.

But can an F-18's camera rotate 180 (oops, not 90) degrees like that? For what reason would the operator rotate it when the object has remained more or less dead center? Why does the background rotate while the object remains horizontal?

Also, if the object is solid and bright white, against a dark blue background, then the natural contrast could hardly be more pronounced. And if the object was stationary, as one report claims, then you've got a highly contrasted, still object. Why mess with the camera when you've got such a perfect scene?

Watching the end again, there is even a single frame between 1:11 and 1:12 that suddenly contains two objects, along with a bright band along the lower half of the frame. It's so discontinuous that it's either a glitch, editing, or possibly the F-18 was jumping through time and space? If anything, it appears that any motion and 'teleportation' of the object is the result of movement/glitching of the camera, at least until it slowly moves off to the left.

Regardless, the claim that the motion of the object (as the frame is rotated) was actually the object itself flying a little half-circle... that just makes me want to beat up my little brother.


P.S. - Check this out - at 1:25 a bright UFO comes into view. Then at 1:37, BAM! it teleports off to Alpha Centauri, up and to the right.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join