CONFIRMED: the DoD did release the 3 UAP videos: GoFast, Gimbal, FLIR (aka Tic Tac)

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Our apathy is mighty!

I don't have too much of a problem with it. I think it helps us maintain cultural stability instead of having people running off half-cocked whenever a weird light pops up in the sky. Sometimes we don't do well fully cocked.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Our apathy is mighty!

I don't have too much of a problem with it. I think it helps us maintain cultural stability instead of having people running off half-cocked whenever a weird light pops up in the sky. Sometimes we don't do well fully cocked.

I think you are confusing apathy with discernment. Most of the videos posted on here and youtube may well be ufos, but then again those blurry spots could be anything.

US apathy when Germany is taking over the world, or not evacuating when a monster like Katrina is coming right for New Orleans is different. Hynek recorded hundreds of witnesses to Hudson valley, yet no answer.

Tom DeLonge is the only board member who appears to have no links with intelligence.

Quoted here for the hilarity. You know how dumb the average person is, right? Well, rock stars are even dumber than that. Believe it or not...

Well there is this..
imgs.xkcd.com...

At 1:16 what is the 'ASA' one of the pilots mentions? I've searched for it but can't find anything. Is it a radar display or something? Thanks.

originally posted by: mirageman
Section 7 hasn't even been completed. All the boxed sections below are left blank. No name, signature, date nor who the clearance was requested by.

Correct. This so called documentation doesn't prove anything without that.

originally posted by: 1point92AU
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The video in question is in fact the actual tic tac UAP referenced by Fravor and it was from that same day but on a seperate training mission which took place once Fravor landed back on the ship. It was taken by the fighter pilot Chad Underwood who met Fravor on the flight deck upon his return. So it is the actual UAP Fravor witnessed but not during (Fravor's) training mission.

According to this report the pilot making the video is not convinced it's the same object:

thenimitzencounters.com...

LT.__________ was clear in that he couldn’t confirm that it was the same object as described by FASTEAGLE flight. He never had visual, only seeing the object via the FLIR.

originally posted by: Retro~Burn

At 1:16 what is the 'ASA' one of the pilots mentions? I've searched for it but can't find anything. Is it a radar display or something? Thanks.

It sounds like ASA but he's probably referring to AESA and yes it's radar.

AESA

NY Times UFO Explained (Gimbal video)

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: 1point92AU
Hat's off to George Knapp for his investigative journalism. He located the official documents proving the Department of Defense did in fact release the 3 videos we've all seen and discussed here ad nausem. More commonly known as GoFast, Gimbal, and Tic Tac.

I have read so much disinformation not only on ATS but many other forums attempting to discredit these videos since their release in 2017. So now we have the official documentation as presented in this brief video by Mr. Knapp himself at KLAS TV:

I've also heard over the next few weeks there are going to be more official UAP videos released.

I don't get it? So the DOD is releasing footage but it's vague and inconclusive. People generally seem to believe there is a big cover-up but is that the best footage they have? If so then there isn't much of a cover-up?

What about the supposed fighter jet that intercepted the Phoenix Lights craft or things like that, even incident reports from the pilot? Supposedly the pilot was all shaken up, if that happened they could release the report?
Wouldn't that jet have had a camera?

I never heard of that and read a lot about the Phoenix lights.

Is the DOD just releasing a little at a time and starting slow or they really don't have anything better? Does the military even share their ufo incidents with DOD?

contrary to the claim of this thread that there is confirmation the DOD released these videos, there is not as mirageman pointed out, the documents are not completed so they prove nothing. From the accounts of some people some longer versions exist and the defense department may have chosen to not release those for whatever reason. The longer videos may provide additional context. TTSA and others claim they are released but look at how many folks working for TTSA have intelligence community connections, making this look more like intelligence-related propaganda than any official release.

I don't believe the Lazar stuff but if the DOD actually had connections to an actual UFO reverse-engineered or whatever would they be releasing vague videos of tic-tacs?

Again, I see no evidence the DOD released these. I see people making that claim and presenting documentation which doesn't prove it.

Also now that we know the DOD funded a small team to investigate ufo's wouldn't this be confirmation that all that Roswell/Area 51 stuff is complete mythology?
So if it was all real and the government knows for sure aliens are here and all they do is fund a small team with a small budget (comparatively) and then stop the program after a few years?
No chance. That really shows the DOD doesn't have much information. If they did they would have an entire ufo branch with a trillion dollar budget.

It's not even clear that AATIP was really a UFO research organization. We have folks like Lue Elizondo claiming it was and that he headed up the program but now we have Greenwald from the Black Vault saying a pentagon spokesperson said that Elizondo never headed AATIP (as he claims) so if we believe Greenwald and I find him credible, then Elizondo's claims are in question. Roswell happened but the USAF 1994 report seems like a reasonable accounting of what happened.

Okay, that it has been alleged that the videos came from legitimate sources still does not make them true. if you are going to release such videos why not follow it up with a real genuine military spokesperson to answer questions?

Yes, I am quite sure we can all come up with rationales as to why such a spokesperson hasn't come forward, but that would be just us thinking # up to fit the story. Highly suspicious of all this.

originally posted by: joelr
What about the supposed fighter jet that intercepted the Phoenix Lights craft or things like that, even incident reports from the pilot? Supposedly the pilot was all shaken up, if that happened they could release the report?
Wouldn't that jet have had a camera?

Two cameras actually, because there were two Falcons sent up. But they are not going to show that or even report that because that would show that one big mutha alien craft flew over the city! It's called cover-up for a reason.

"how can we believe everything or anything else from the same sources?“

Even the boy who cried "Wolf!" told the truth once.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

I never heard of that and read a lot about the Phoenix lights.

contrary to the claim of this thread that there is confirmation the DOD released these videos, there is not as mirageman pointed out, the documents are not completed so they prove nothing. From the accounts of some people some longer versions exist and the defense department may have chosen to not release those for whatever reason. The longer videos may provide additional context. TTSA and others claim they are released but look at how many folks working for TTSA have intelligence community connections, making this look more like intelligence-related propaganda than any official release.

Again, I see no evidence the DOD released these. I see people making that claim and presenting documentation which doesn't prove it.

It's not even clear that AATIP was really a UFO research organization. We have folks like Lue Elizondo claiming it was and that he headed up the program but now we have Greenwald from the Black Vault saying a pentagon spokesperson said that Elizondo never headed AATIP (as he claims) so if we believe Greenwald and I find him credible, then Elizondo's claims are in question. Roswell happened but the USAF 1994 report seems like a reasonable accounting of what happened.

At 1:02:50 Peter Davenport goes over the story about the shaken pilot who had to be helped from his jet. Davenport says he actually spoke with this pilot, I think, I need to re-watch this myself.
This is a good lecture.


www.youtube.com...


This skeptic article on the tic-tac raises some of the points you raised.
www.skeptic.com...

It's too much information for too little pay-off for me to try and figure this mess out. Something definitely seems off.

Can anyone debunk any of the claims from the skeptics article, if anyone cares to read it?

Everyone involved on the pro-ufo side seems to have some sort of agenda.

originally posted by: sean
a reply to: Blue Shift

Well it certainly is starting to look plausible that it could be alien. How do you stuff a bunch of tech into a tiny craft that can out fly a top jet fighter craft and possibly submerge in water and go into space and not show up on radars and stuff like that. Hell maybe it's dimensional. It's irritating to listen to scientists talk about these craft are unidentified and laugh about the idea of it being alien. It's just not a unidentified craft, it's a unidentified craft doing some pretty amazing things. Even mentioning aliens it's going to ruin their reputation, but they will flat out tell you that there is 11 dimensions. WTH. lol

One of the first computers filled an entire room and could only do basic math.

Isnt that exactly our problem... we can't fathom the tech, hence we havent made it and we cant explain it and it doesnt make sense to us.

Had you told the people in the 50s that in 60 years, that thing will be inside a watch and do more complicated stuff.... what would they have said?

Once we acquire and and publicly know off antimatter or antigravity drives.... we will only come across more stuff we didnt know was possible.

But someone tell me.... let's assume that all the major incidents are true accounts.
Thats causes some issues, since they all seem to somehow set definitive premise for how these craft are constructed and their propulsion.
So what does that mean? Are we dealing with several classes of ships? Several species? Several goverment projects? Several hoax?

I need an answer... because I wouldnt expect us to be so "lucky" as to end up with several visitations and species when it happens....

I wonder if they have a more complete version of this one tucked away somewhere:


I think I cobbled this one out of some stills in Blue Book, but I don't remember. Anyway, it looks familiar. If it could be shown to that to these things have been flying around since the 60s, that would make it far less likely that they're home grown.

originally posted by: joelr
At 1:02:50 Peter Davenport goes over the story about the shaken pilot who had to be helped from his jet. Davenport says he actually spoke with this pilot, I think, I need to re-watch this myself.
This is a good lecture.

Peter Davenport seems like a nice guy, too bad he dropped his belief that the flares were flares for Lynne Kitei's biased misinterpretation and Davenport shows an incorrect graphic of the flares on the near side of the mountain, when it's been conclusively proven they were on the far side of the mountain range, by Cognitech's analysis.

Davenport didn't talk to the shaken pilot as far as I can tell, it was a story about that relayed by someone else who called him, so we have to allow for some distortion in the story. In fact Davenport makes some comment about not finding the part about the pilot being shaken credible because pilots aren't so easily scared, but who knows? Anyway what difference would that make? It's got nothing to do with the UFO. Alan Hendry's book on UFOs has a section on emotional responses to UFOs, here's one of the more interesting responses:

"Case 871: "Oh My Lord, it's the end of the world! I'd better get down on my knees and pray!" --star changing colors seen for several hours."

The Ufo Handbook: A Guide to Investigating, Evaluating, and Reporting Ufo Sightings-by Allan Hendry



Before someone says "but a pilot....they are Gods and never make mistakes!", see the other link you posted:

This skeptic article on the tic-tac raises some of the points you raised.
www.skeptic.com...

Much is made of the fact that reports were generated by highly trained military pilots, some with combat experience. The implication is that their observations are far more credible than those of just ordinary folks. But longtime UFO researchers recall that Dr. J. Allen Hynek, the former U. S. Air Force Project Blue Book scientific consultant, wrote “Surprisingly, commercial and military pilots appear to make relatively poor witnesses” (The Hynek UFO Report, 1977, p. 271). The pilot is, and must be, focused on keeping the aircraft safely aloft, and not on watching some strange-looking object.

It's too much information for too little pay-off for me to try and figure this mess out. Something definitely seems off.

Can anyone debunk any of the claims from the skeptics article, if anyone cares to read it?

Sheaffer's article seems accurate to me. My take on this mess is TTSA is running a multimedia company and wants to become a giant to compete with the likes of Disney. The most accurate possible reporting is not consistent with those goals, so there is certainly incentive for their portrayal to do things like leave out details which might make the story less compelling or interesting. The producers of "UFO Hunters" did a lot of that too and even promoted photos of what was obviously Venus as a UFO and their physicist didn't even mention trying to look up the sighting on Stellarium to check if it was a planet, they apparently wouldn't let him check or reveal that.

But aside from the transparent profit motives in running a multimedia company promoting entertainment (not factual reporting documentary style but entertainment), have you seen the staff of TTSA? It looks nothing like the staff of a multimedia entertainment company, but is populated by folks with ties to the intelligence community who has a history of trying to muddy the waters on the UFO topic for their own purposes for many decades. Like this man from TTSA, Chris Mellon, who showed this picture of a #1 helium party balloon and talked about it defying the laws of physics, do you really believe he could be that incompetent or is it part of an agenda to muddy the UFO waters?

Everyone involved on the pro-ufo side seems to have some sort of agenda.

The agenda of TTSA is ostensibly clear, to make a profit on multimedia entertainment products. But what's not so clear is why they have a staff that seems to depart so dramatically from an entertainment company staff, to be populated by so many intelligence community folks. And then there are others who hope to make some money from this buzz too, other documentary producers. And a few poeple trying to get to the truth but that seems nearly impossible with all the apparently conflicting information, though I think Robert Sheaffer has made a valiant effort. As he says:

Fravor sharply criticized the accounts of certain other people who were involved and have been speaking about the incident. He seemed to be singling out the account of the radar operator, Kevin Day, as being non-factual. He dismissed claims of Air Force personnel coming on board the Nimitz and confiscating evidence as being untrue. Fravor also referred to Dave Beaty’s “Nimitz UFO Encounters” documentary as a “cartoon.” This prompted Knapp to say to Fravor, “I guess you’re being diplomatic, but some of the stories and claims that have been made by people, who may have been on those ships, are just bull#.”

So how is anybody to sort out what happened when you have key witnesses effectively calling each other liars and discrediting the accounts of others? So this debunks the claim by believers that "so many witnesses and they all agree on what they saw...", nope, that's not true. But I don't pretend to know whose version is true, though it wouldn't surprise me if I later learned this was the idea of the intelligence community to muddy the waters with conflicting accounts. They've done it before.

Getting back to the Davenport video though, there was one useful tidbit in there. That Phoenix Lights story also had huge discrepancies in witness accounts of people in the same area looking at the same thing at the same time with wildly different estimates of the distance, some saying the altitude was high, others saying the altitude was low. So how do we know which altitude interpretation was correct? Whether the pilot was really shaken or not (again Davenport seemed skeptical about that part), the useful information related was the altitude of 18,000 feet, which favored the witnesses who said it was higher and tends to discredit the witnesses who said it was lower, assuming the pursuing jet has a better perspective and advanced technology to get a more accurate take on altitude than a ground observer, so that's my take from the Davenport video.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

I think I cobbled this one out of some stills in Blue Book, but I don't remember.

That looks like photos of what the Air Force said was a balloon, the same "UFO" that Gordon Cooper said sprouted landing legs and landed in front of him and they sent the "film" to Washington, "never to be seen again". That is the film! There was a UFO but Gordon Cooper was spinning tall tales about it landing, among other aspects of the story.

Found? Gordon Cooper's 1957 UFO film "sent...to...Washington...never to be seen again"
But today people would call it a "TicTac" UFO instead of a flying saucer!

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: joelr

Peter Davenport seems like a nice guy, too bad he dropped his belief that the flares were flares for Lynne Kitei's biased misinterpretation and Davenport shows an incorrect graphic of the flares on the near side of the mountain, when it's been conclusively proven they were on the far side of the mountain range, by Cognitech's analysis.

I thought that as well, very disappointing. He should know better than that, I think he might be so buddy-buddy with Lynn he was compelled to take her point of view. She seems very forward and I get the impression she drives him nuts with her ramblings on and on.
Lynn did a lecture on a more recent Phoenix sighting that was flares on balloons and she came up with all these ridiculous reasons why it wasn't flares. She even mentioned that the neighbor of the person who admitted sending up flares on balloons actually did an interview on the news and explained he saw the flares going up and then once they got high enough they just looked like lights.
It was so bad, that took Lynn Ketai right out of the picture. She was giving vague reasons why she thought the person who sent up the flares really didn't send up flares (like he couldn't be reached, wouldn't do a re-inactment, his son didn't know, he wasn't charged with littering?) and did not ever mention the fact that the guy next door went on the news and told the story of seeing flares floating up on balloons from the guy's back yard?

Davenport thinks the pilot might have seen the craft on the lantern pod, he claims to know the name of the ex-pilot but the won't give an interview.

I trust Davenport, mostly.

Thank you for the information on the TTS, it's sounds like fraud and disinformation at the same time.
The only person who has financial stake in the ufo field (besides Davenport) who I trust is David Marler who wrote a book on black triangles. He's the only ufo author/researcher who admits the whole Roswell/Area 51 and such is a myth but without being a full skeptic.
I get it, you do what you have to do to make rent sometimes. But people have to police the field and be less tolerant of hoaxers.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
originally posted by: joelrGetting back to the Davenport video though, there was one useful tidbit in there. That Phoenix Lights story also had huge discrepancies in witness accounts of people in the same area looking at the same thing at the same time with wildly different estimates of the distance, some saying the altitude was high, others saying the altitude was low. So how do we know which altitude interpretation was correct? Whether the pilot was really shaken or not (again Davenport seemed skeptical about that part), the useful information related was the altitude of 18,000 feet, which favored the witnesses who said it was higher and tends to discredit the witnesses who said it was lower, assuming the pursuing jet has a better perspective and advanced technology to get a more accurate take on altitude than a ground observer, so that's my take from the Davenport video.

After a few re-watchings and listening to old interviews (Davenport on Art Bell where he brings on 2 separate Phoenix lights witnesses) I guess they were seen around 18000 then descended down to 10000, were several different craft of vastly different sizes and slightly different versions of triangles. Also people had trouble judging exactly what altitude they were at.
The conversation with the military air dispatch was 45 minutes long (he played a brief clip) and he knew a lot of information about the nature of the Phoenix ufos, the directions and altitude, heading and that was the same evening that it happened. But Davenport has never given his name.

When Davenport said that the information "leads me to believe the craft could change shape" I had to cringe.
Yeah, that's one interpretation of making disparate evidence fit, also known as confirmation bias?

But that doesn't kill the whole case. It's a pretty solid case, something weird happened.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Retro~Burn

At 1:16 what is the 'ASA' one of the pilots mentions? I've searched for it but can't find anything. Is it a radar display or something? Thanks.

It sounds like ASA but he's probably referring to AESA and yes it's radar.

AESA

NY Times UFO Explained (Gimbal video)

Thanks for replying. I've actually confirmed elsewhere the 'ASA' system is something they use:

Analyst Support Architecture. It's software which amalgamates a lot of information coming from multiple sensors and platforms. ie not just those on the jet itself. It's a system that is deployed on the aircraft, but also on each of the ships of of the Strike Force. Tyler Rogoway's recent article, about the technology updates which seemingly allowed these things to be seen, is referring, in part, to the ASA.

The Tyler Rogoway article he's referring to. Also here's a separate article on the ASA system. FYI the AESA type radar they used which is credited with detecting the UFOs in 2015 is the AN/APG-79.

Going back to the War Zone (Tyler Rogoway) article. Here's an interesting excerpt:

Apparently, others appeared to be spinning in mid-air like tops and were captured by the Super Hornet's AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR targeting pod. The now famous 'gimbal video' was supposedly recorded on one of the Red Rippers' training missions

I know in the Gimbal video he said it was rotating. But it adds credence to the theory they actually captured it rotating and not a jet's exhaust as some skeptics have said.

Ufos are a military exercise. The people displaying the image on the radar are well aware. They are training the military? YOU DONT SAY

originally posted by: elysiumfire
if you are going to release such videos why not follow it up with a real genuine military spokesperson to answer questions?

Yes, I am quite sure we can all come up with rationales as to why such a spokesperson hasn't come forward, but that would be just us thinking # up to fit the story. Highly suspicious of all this.

LOL...what exactly do you classify Luis Elizondo as if not an "genuine military spokesperson"? The man has all the credentials needed if you are looking for "genuine military". Just because you don't like Zondo doesn't disqualify his military credentials.

BIO Luis Elizondo is a career intelligence officer whose experience includes working with the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, the National Counterintelligence Executive, and the Director of National Intelligence. As a former Special Agent In-Charge, Luis conducted and supervised highly sensitive espionage and terrorism investigations around the world. As an intelligence Case Officer, he ran clandestine source operations throughout Latin America and the Middle East. Most recently, Luis managed the security for certain sensitive portfolios for the US Government as the Director for the National Programs Special Management Staff. For nearly the last decade, Luis also ran a sensitive aerospace threat identification program focusing on unidentified aerial technologies. Luis’ academic background includes Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology, with research experience in tropical diseases. Luis is also an inventor who holds several patents.

Lastly and by this point nearly 2 years later since the release of the 3 videos if the government didn't release these videos then every single major network news carrier needs to begin issuing corrections because every single time these videos come up as part of a news story they are referenced as videos released by the DOD.

originally posted by: 1point92AU
For nearly the last decade, Luis also ran a sensitive aerospace threat identification program focusing on unidentified aerial technologies.

But did he? Apparently a pentagon spokesperson says AATIP existed, but Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program. If the truth of that is questionable, what else of what you cited is also questionable?

The Media Loves This UFO Expert Who Says He Worked for an Obscure Pentagon Program. Did He?

Yes, AATIP existed, and it “did pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena,” Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood told me. However, he added: “Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI [the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence], up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017.”

originally posted by: joelr
I guess they were seen around 18000 then descended down to 10000, were several different craft of vastly different sizes and slightly different versions of triangles. Also people had trouble judging exactly what altitude they were at.

Yes, ground witnesses had widely varying accounts of the altitude, but as I said the planes have advanced technology, so they should have more reliable altitude information. If you accept the 18000 to 10000, that calibrates which of the ground witness reports were more in line with the technology the jets used to ascertain the altitude and personally I take that to mean people who think it was only 500 feet high (or below 10000) had a misperception, and it's far more likely the 18000 to 10000 altitude was the actual altitude.

The only reliable data we have comes from the one video, and that clearly shows relative motion of the lights meaning they are not all connected rigidly to a large object but are independent light sources. Most eyewitness accounts unreliable; human perceptions are notoriously unreliable, with a few possible exceptions like the man who used his telescope to get a better look, I tend to place more weight on his observations because a telescopic view would tend to provide more detailed information about what was flying overhead. Just look at the "Battle of LA", there are so many conflicting accounts of what happened, they must be mostly wrong, so if that doesn't convince you that you can't trust eyewitness accounts, I don't know what will.

There's also this mass UFO sighting of a mothership seen by many witnesses, one of the best UFO cases ever.

Yukon UFO "Mothership" Incident: December 11th, 1996
[pressimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/47497427bbd9.jpg[/pressimg]
Courtesy: www.ufobc.ca...

Hynek Classification: CE1

Do you trust those eyewitnesses? Yes lots of witnesses saw that mothership, but there was no mothership, and those witnesses also vastly misjudged the distance and altitude. I could go on with more examples.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Man you're getting wrapped around the wrong part of the story. Of course attempts to discredit the main spokesperson are going to be spun up left and right. It's part of the game. You really think Zondo or any of the others are going to go unchallenged?

No one is asking the right questions in this new age of disclosure.

Read this from Chris Mellon: “We know that UFOs exist,” Chris Mellon, a deputy assistant secretary of defense for intelligence in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, pronounced on the show. “This is no longer an issue. The issue is why are they here? Where are they coming from? And what is the technology behind these devices that we are observing?”

The REAL and ONLY question is this.

Why is the US government allowing this level of disclosure to occur and what is the end game?

What we have witnessed since 2017 up until present day HAS NEVER HAPPENED in our history regarding UFOlogy.

We now have the mainstream media talking about UFOs during prime time viewing hours. CBS, CNBC, Fox, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, etc. all have either had prime time spots dedicated to this topic or have published articles regarding this.

Hell the entire announcement of To the Stars Academy went mainstream with the MSM. It wasn't even a back page release. It was front page news followed by prime time TV coverage. I know because I watched it happen real time.

The 3 videos are released. Fravor goes mainstream across the country about tic tac, the Navy comes out with a national press release about new reporting guidelines regarding UFOs, the Navy publicly patents technology related to electro gravity propulsion systems and craft that strongly resemble TR3B.

The Nimitz Encounters goes viral after Fravor. More people come forward, etc and the list goes on.

Why now? Why all the mainstream coverage? Why all the very high ranking people behind TTSA? I mean come on man...have you read the bios of the people associated with TTSA? Delonge and Zondo aside that is a legit group of spooks. And that right there is eye brow raising as well.

Why now and what is the intended result? Those are the ONLY questions we should be seeking to understand the answers too. Something is going on and it sure as hell isn't because the US govt woke up one day and felt like "people have a right to know". There is a very specific purpose behind this and that's what I want to know.