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.

 

U.S. Navy drafting new guidelines for reporting UFOs

page: 2
28
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: BiffWellington




So an object having no wings or exhaust outperforming a fighter jet and, according to pilot witnesses, appearing to defy the laws of physics is merely a "slight abnormality"?

Learn to use terms such as "apparently"



Thanks for the tip.

Just for fun:


edit on 24-4-2019 by BiffWellington because: (no reason given)


Twelve Government Documents That Take UFOs Seriously
edit on 24-4-2019 by BiffWellington because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: BiffWellington

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: BiffWellington




So an object having no wings or exhaust outperforming a fighter jet and, according to pilot witnesses, appearing to defy the laws of physics is merely a "slight abnormality"?

Learn to use terms such as "apparently"



Thanks for the tip.

Just for fun:



Twelve Government Documents That Take UFOs Seriously

UFOs are real and are taken seriously by the military of any government .
Until they are identified
Not an alien amongst them.



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: BiffWellington

originally posted by: TerraLiga

This website and others are full of paranoid fantasists who immediately jump on any slight abnormality and automatically assume it must be alien.


So an object having no wings or exhaust outperforming a fighter jet and, according to pilot witnesses, appearing to defy the laws of physics is merely a "slight abnormality"?

Not sure a person has to be a "paranoid fantasist" to consider that, if such reports are accurate (and very similar observations have been reported by military pilots for about 70 years), whatever these things are, they don't come anywhere near fitting the description (to put it mildly) of any known human technology.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence of anything. A description is not fact. As everything within the universe is subject to the laws of physics, does it not suggest to a sensible person that the object did not perform those manoeuvres, and a mistake was probably made in identifying and/or observing this anomaly?

As an example, if an object moves faster than sound it will have repercussions that will be visible and audible. Not one pilot mentioned any such observation. This is pretty basic school science but has been totally overlooked. An object that looks like a ‘Tictac’ will not be able to hide or dissolve sound wave compression. Basic, page 1 aeronautical science. Ignored.

Like I said, this keenness to jump on any anomaly and claim “it must be aliens!” Is stupid.



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Well said.

Weren’t they (UAPs) — maybe by the NRO — called fast-walkers back in the day? The politico article mentions anything Mach 3 and above, sure that’s impressive, but it’s an incomprehensibly low bar for anything one would expect an anti-gravity, (whatever pseudo physics you may fancy) subliminal star-hopper would achieve, IMO.

I would never pretend to know it all, but I’d bet my last dollar the US Navy aren’t updating reporting guidelines to obtain better ‘data’ on the ET-type UAPs.

I know you have mentioned numerous times your collaborations with some Russian counterparts in studying UAPs — for the most part pegged as rocket launches — do you have any insight into the Chinese? Thanks in advance.



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: TerraLiga

The article refers to an F18 super hornet. There is video of the incident that has been released by the military. You haven't seen it?


I've seen the one released by Elizondo as part of his fund-raising campaign. When/where was it ever released 'by the military'?


Either it was released by the military, or Elizondo made sensor data public without proper clearance.



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: TerraLiga

I never came to any conclusion. Just pointing out that automatically suggesting it was a Russian or Chinese aircraft is just as "not productive" as automatically assuming it was extra terrestrial.

I think it's perfectly fine to just leave them at "unidentified" for the purposes of tracking them and gathering data. Once they have sufficient data, then they can come to a more definitive conclusion as to what they actually are. If they can.



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackIbanez

Yeah, for some reason the Navy's statement widened my eyes too. They admitted something highly advanced is intruding, and they haven't a clue what it is.



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen
Old news
www.evawaseerst.be...



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1   >>

log in

join