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.

 

The Navy Says Those UFO Videos Are Real

page: 1
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+13 more 
posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   


The U.S. Navy has confirmed that three online videos purportedly showing UFOs are genuine. The service says the videos, taken by Navy pilots, show “unexplained aerial phenomena,” but also states that the clips should have never been released to the public in the first place.

The three videos in question are titled "FLIR1," "Gimbal," and "GoFast." They show two separate encounters between Navy aircraft and UFOs.


The Navy Says Those UFO Videos Are Real

This information comes from Joseph Gradisher who is the official spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare. Joseph Gradisher reported this to The Black Vault.

The 3 videos are from two different encounters. One happened in 2015 the other in 2004. I didn't realize that two of the videos are from the same encounter. I still question the motive behind the release of the three videos.




posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: LookingAtMars

My nickles worth is they were hosed either way by saying yea they are real they dont risk alienating the pilots they need and are probably counting on our 15 second attention span to make it go away quickly.


The more they tried to deny the more people would look at it and ponder this way its not longer a lurid headline and instead will drift off the news quietly accept for us crazy ufo nuts.



posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LookingAtMars

"This information comes from Joseph Gradisher who is the official spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare"...
Information Warfare? Propaganda?



posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Okay, the videos are "real," and not cooked up by some kid with Vegas Pro, but what about the things actually in the videos?



posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: LookingAtMars

Still though, does it really matter?

God himself could come down from heaven and confirm them as real, but it'd still just be grainy footage of an indistinguishable object.

Doesn't prove anything one way or the other.



posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: maya27
a reply to: LookingAtMars

"This information comes from Joseph Gradisher who is the official spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare"...
Information Warfare? Propaganda?


I thought that was interesting also. That and the fact this information was revealed to The Black Vault.



posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift



but what about the things actually in the videos?



In other words, the Pentagon says the aerial objects in the videos are simply unidentified, and for now, unexplained. The Navy is pointedly not saying the objects are flying saucers or otherwise controlled by aliens.


I don't think they are going to let anyone know what the things are, even if they do know themselves.



posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

They are saying they are real and not CGI.

There are some things about the objects and some things the objects do that are pretty amazing, even though they are grainy indistinguishable objects.



posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: LookingAtMars

From the article...


The videos were released for public viewing by The New York Times and To The Stars Academy of Arts & Sciences, a UFO research group from former Blink-182 member Tom DeLonge.


...er no!

TTSA and NYT constantly claim they released these to the public. However, one of them (FLIR) was actually released here back in 2007

See TFT's thread here



posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Diaspar
a reply to: LookingAtMars

From the article...


The videos were released for public viewing by The New York Times and To The Stars Academy of Arts & Sciences, a UFO research group from former Blink-182 member Tom DeLonge.


...er no!

TTSA and NYT constantly claim they released these to the public. However, one of them (FLIR) was actually released here back in 2007

See TFT's thread here



Thanks for pointing that out. The key words are "for public viewing". I think it was more of a "leak" in 2007.



posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: LookingAtMars

This is a big f*ing deal!!!!

THIS IS DISCLOSURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It has hit the mainstream....a public billboard on DIsclosure.... Its time to prepare....


edit on 16-9-2019 by celltypespecific because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: celltypespecific

I agree that this is a pretty big deal.


I don't know or trust the reason behind it though.

How should we prepare?



posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LookingAtMars


but also states that the clips should have never been released to the public in the first place.


So actually they (TTSA/NYT) are also guilty of leaking in that case, no?

Point is, 10 years+ before NYT/TTSA got in on this case, one was already in the public domain regardless of method, even though NYT/TTSA keep saying they were the ones to do it.

@Cellty...

C'mon. How many times does it have to be re-stated. Big difference between videos being genuine and what's actually in them, which is still being described as UAP. Operative word being "Unexplained".

If, big if, they (or someone else) goes beyond UAP to actually identifying them then, maybe, it will be it will be a big deal depending on what they turn out to be. Right now they're still in the unexplained category...



posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Diaspar



So actually they (TTSA/NYT) are also guilty of leaking in that case, no?


I don't think so but I could be wrong. Just because Joseph Gradisher says it "should have never been released to the public in the first place". This doesn't mean it wasn't released to the public willingly. Just means it shouldn't of been. That may just be his opinion. who knows. Something seems wrong about this whole situation, wish I knew what it was.



posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 07:28 PM
link   
It's still a big step to even have the military acknowledge them, something they have refused to do for decades. Their categorical response has always been no opinion or response. A complete lack of acknowledgement.

This verifies actual pilots engaging actual objects, and the Navy's decision to not publish this to the public. That's something. When dealing with the military and the government with this topic, very small baby steps are all you can expect.



posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: LookingAtMars

Recently published scientific article behind the vidoes..

"Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles"

www.preprints.org...


A number of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) encountered by military, commercial, and civilian aircraft have been reported to be structured craft that exhibit 'impossible' flight characteristics. We consider a handful of well-documented encounters, including the 2004 encounters with the Nimitz Carrier Group off the coast of California, and estimate lower bounds on the accelerations exhibited by the craft during the observed maneuvers. Estimated accelerations range from almost 100g to 1000s of g's with no observed air disturbance, no sonic booms, and no evidence of excessive heat commensurate with even the minimal estimated energies. In accordance with observations, the estimated parameters describing the behavior of these craft are both anomalous and surprising. The extreme estimated flight characteristics reveal that these observations are either fabricated or seriously in error, or that these craft exhibit technology far more advanced than any known craft on Earth. In many cases, the number and quality of witnesses, the variety of roles they played in the encounters, and the equipment used to track and record the craft favor the latter hypothesis that these are indeed technologically advanced craft. The observed flight characteristics of these craft are consistent with the flight characteristics required for interstellar travel. That is, if these observed accelerations were sustainable in space, then these craft could easily reach relativistic speeds within a matter of minutes to hours and cover interstellar distances in a matter of days to weeks, proper time

edit on 16-9-2019 by celltypespecific because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit
It's still a big step to even have the military acknowledge them, something they have refused to do for decades. Their categorical response has always been no opinion or response. A complete lack of acknowledgement.

This verifies actual pilots engaging actual objects, and the Navy's decision to not publish this to the public. That's something. When dealing with the military and the government with this topic, very small baby steps are all you can expect.


Very true.

Even if the objects are man made, this is an amazing revelation.



posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
Something seems wrong about this whole situation, wish I knew what it was.



Indeed.

As revealed recently by The Black Vault...


[Elizondo] told DOPSR that the subject matter of the three videos (referenced in item b) were, “UAV, Balloons and other UAS.” UAV, to the DOD, means “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle” or better known as a drone. Balloons are just that, but a really bizarre way to describe these videos of “unidentified aerial phenomena.” And lastly UAS, to the DOD, means Unmanned Aircraft System.

Why would these descriptions be falsely attributed to the videos, as submitted to DOPSR, when according to Mr. Elizondo, his conclusions based on the program he was heading, said they were “unidentified?”


Ex CIA Counter-intelligence Officers, eh? Would YOU buy a used car or drone from one?


edit on 16-9-2019 by ConfusedBrit because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 07:43 PM
link   
"I don't believe anything the government tells me!"

-George Carlin



posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: celltypespecific
a reply to: LookingAtMars

Recently published scientific article behind the vidoes..

"Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles"

www.preprints.org...


A number of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) encountered by military, commercial, and civilian aircraft have been reported to be structured craft that exhibit 'impossible' flight characteristics. We consider a handful of well-documented encounters, including the 2004 encounters with the Nimitz Carrier Group off the coast of California, and estimate lower bounds on the accelerations exhibited by the craft during the observed maneuvers. Estimated accelerations range from almost 100g to 1000s of g's with no observed air disturbance, no sonic booms, and no evidence of excessive heat commensurate with even the minimal estimated energies. In accordance with observations, the estimated parameters describing the behavior of these craft are both anomalous and surprising. The extreme estimated flight characteristics reveal that these observations are either fabricated or seriously in error, or that these craft exhibit technology far more advanced than any known craft on Earth. In many cases, the number and quality of witnesses, the variety of roles they played in the encounters, and the equipment used to track and record the craft favor the latter hypothesis that these are indeed technologically advanced craft. The observed flight characteristics of these craft are consistent with the flight characteristics required for interstellar travel. That is, if these observed accelerations were sustainable in space, then these craft could easily reach relativistic speeds within a matter of minutes to hours and cover interstellar distances in a matter of days to weeks, proper time


Thanks for posting this info.


Knuth, K.H.; Powell, R.M.; Reali, P.A - Any idea who the they are? Quick DDG search didn't produce anything.




top topics



 
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join