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.

 

**Calling Isaac Koi** - UFOs are real, US Navy FINALLY admits, never should have been released to pu

page: 1
46
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+13 more 
posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 03:37 AM
link   
The immense amount of respect that I have for Isaac can not be overstated such that I wish for his input into this:

"US Navy confirms leaked 'UFO videos' are real'

I acknowlege that Bill does not accept this source

Here we are, nothing else matters...........if this becomes verified.

*becomes
edit on 18/9/2019 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft


Joseph Gradisher, a spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare

Here's another source

The videos are real but what they show is unknown , according to a spokesman for Information Warfare.



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

I just want you to know that when matters of UFOs are discussed on ATS, I appreciate your input and I respect and account for your comments therein, you're a verifiable foundation to separate the wheat from the chaff....




posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex


but what they show is unknown


I'm shocked. What a valuable piece of info. Heaven forbid they claim certain, something. I specifically love when they get into "UFO does not mean aliens, it just mean unidentified" denial meme. And they just usually leave at that. Oh well..it's just unidentified. Phew...for a moment there I thought it was groundbreaking discovery...thank goodness it's just "unidentified".



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Thank you.
I find the claim that they were released accidentally by a Pentagon employee ( Luis Elizondo ) who wished to share them with other departments as part of a database on UFOs odd , if they were genuinely unidentified Flying Objects I would expect they'd be highly classified and out of reach and knowledge of lower level employees like Zondo.

From the original Black Vault story.

In one of the released e-mails, Mr. Elizondo stated his justification for the clearance to use the three videos for U.S. government use only: “Unmanned aerial vehicles (balloons, commercial UAVs, private drones such as quadcopters, etc) continue to pose a potential threat to DoD facilities, equipment, and location. Army, Navy, and Air Force have all acknowledged the potential threat by UAS’ to DoD equities but no single UNCLASSIFIED repository exists to share this Information across all stakeholders.” Mr. Elizondo continued, “Our collective purpose is to eventually establish an UNCLASSIFIED database or ‘Community of Interest’ of related signature data to be accessible by stakeholders such as DIA, the Navy, Defense Industry partners, and perhaps even State, Local & Tribal authorities to catalog and identify specific UAS threats to national security and/or DoD equities.”

No e-mail released by OSD, which contained the entire conversion between Mr. Elizondo and DOPSR, mentioned UFOs, UAPs or anything “unidentified.”

In addition to these e-mailed communications released, there was a DD Form 1910. This document is used to officially request a DOPSR review of information, and here, Mr. Elizondo described the videos also as “UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle], Balloons, and other UAS [unmanned aerial system].”

Again, no reference to UFOs, UAPs or anything “unidentified.”
www.theblackvault.com... d=IwAR3L18F_eN0aPwb2WKXLr3Zj7j2-XVqJXjCeA8xuCtEeUIBOcSWNTLsCoLE#

TBH I have more questions about TTSA than I do the Pentagon videos.



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft
Take the are out your headline and u will be able to fit public in.



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

The video is real, that does not mean the interpretation of it is correct.



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 05:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sublimecraft

The video is real, that does not mean the interpretation of it is correct.


I very much like your logic, that's why I respect you, bigly!

"Let the fools rejoice in their failings - for therein lies the absolute truth"

thanks for the input brother


+21 more 
posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
**Calling Isaac Koi**


You called??





The immense amount of respect that I have for Isaac can not be overstated such that I wish for his input into this:

"US Navy confirms leaked 'UFO videos' are real'


Thanks for the kinds words.

In short, I think that the videos have now overcome the first of several hurdles for them to be considered significant. That first hurdle was establishing their provenance which has now (more or less) been done. There are quite a few hurdles left after addressing that basic point...

In relation to the best known of the 3 videos (the Nimitz video), I posted on ATS in 2007 at the link below (with emphasis added):


Conclusion : Pending release of the promised further 'files', this video should be tentatively identified as an attempted hoax on ATS by members of the "vision-unlimited" group of German student film makers

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In December 2017 I posted on the UFO Collective email discussion list (at the link below) a post about the Nimitz video with the following summary at the beginning, with more detail for those inclined to read more:


Short answer : since the New York Times article and related material (including interviews with one of the relevant pilots) it looks like we have at least some reassurance that the video is genuine. At the moment, a claim has been made on the To The Stars website that their video "comes with essential chain-of-custody documentation" but that documentation does not appear to be available on that website. Once that is provided, the first of several hurdles will have been overcome and attention can then turn to analysis of the video and related evidence":

groups.google.com...

I'm still doing some work on the Nimitz video and related events.

(By the way, LookingAtMars started a thread on ATS yesterday about the relevant news stories and there have been quite a few comments already in that thread - so it may be better to contribute to that thread rather than continue this newer one:
www.abovetopsecret.com... )

My focus just at the moment is on a much less contentious, but hopefully pretty useful, tool that I've been creating for the UFO community. I hope to post about that within the next week or so.
edit on 18-9-2019 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I've been thinking lately the Navy UFO videos are hoaxes made with fake video overlays. The idea is to see how the pilots react as some kind of crazy military psychological experiment like the Milgram experiment. See how the pilots react or perform under overwhelming superiority.




edit on 18-9-2019 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 06:59 AM
link   
on Tuesday the 17th I clicked one of those Daily Mail, click bait, web offerings to the Navy videos of UFOs...
I had a tough time getting the video link to load ---

in sporatic fits-&-starts I did see what looked like an Old Adamski Model UFO from50 years ago

I gave up trying to look at the video footage … as I usually have trouble getting that Daily Mail website to free-up my computer from their (seemingly, heavy handed) control => as if there is a search bot in my memory files !


I think the UFO Videos by the Military are official click bait lures...to have the viewer on record in their list of "useful idiots"
edit on th30156880815018022019 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



 
ETA



originally posted by: dfnj2015

yep, that's an area to explore... pilot training...
which might account for the use of vintage UFO crafts from 50 years ago... to test the cognitive skills of the pilot that is 'seeing' a known hoax UFO model craft...(for those trainees who were familiar with UFO lore in the public media)

there's more to Data Mining than is immediately brought to mind
edit on th30156880953218252019 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: IsaacKoi

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
**Calling Isaac Koi**


You called??





The immense amount of respect that I have for Isaac can not be overstated such that I wish for his input into this:

"US Navy confirms leaked 'UFO videos' are real'


Thanks for the kinds words.

In short, I think that the videos have now overcome the first of several hurdles for them to be considered significant. That first hurdle was establishing their provenance which has now (more or less) been done. There are quite a few hurdles left after addressing that basic point...

In relation to the best known of the 3 videos (the Nimitz video), I posted on ATS in 2007 at the link below (with emphasis added):


Conclusion : Pending release of the promised further 'files', this video should be tentatively identified as an attempted hoax on ATS by members of the "vision-unlimited" group of German student film makers

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In December 2017 I posted on the UFO Collective email discussion list (at the link below) a post about the Nimitz video with the following summary at the beginning, with more detail for those inclined to read more:


Short answer : since the New York Times article and related material (including interviews with one of the relevant pilots) it looks like we have at least some reassurance that the video is genuine. At the moment, a claim has been made on the To The Stars website that their video "comes with essential chain-of-custody documentation" but that documentation does not appear to be available on that website. Once that is provided, the first of several hurdles will have been overcome and attention can then turn to analysis of the video and related evidence":

groups.google.com...

I'm still doing some work on the Nimitz video and related events.

(By the way, LookingAtMars started a thread on ATS yesterday about the relevant news stories and there have been quite a few comments already in that thread - so it may be better to contribute to that thread rather than continue this newer one:
www.abovetopsecret.com... )

My focus just at the moment is on a much less contentious, but hopefully pretty useful, tool that I've been creating for the UFO community. I hope to post about that within the next week or so.


EVERYONE - take heed, when old mate posts, you better listen...........his bloke takes no prisoners and leaves no doubt as to the reality of facts over opinions when it comes to all things UFO.

ATS's best asset - old mate Isaac.

I feel blessed that you heard my call mate because, in reality, your input into such an overt announcement is paramount in determining the validity of such things.



Cheers.



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 07:47 AM
link   
The Navy really feels like admitting all of it's secrets, huh?

Far cry from the days of good dancey music.



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

and what exactly is "that" interpretation ?

Surely if there was some "earthly", those responsible for the video would have jumped at a chance to debunk it. They have not. All we get is silence and "unknown".

But judging by the tone of your comment, I'm guessing you know what it is. Let me guess...it's "ours" secret black budget tech...right ?

I have to tell you, that line of thought gives me sad giggles.



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

and what exactly is "that" interpretation ?

Surely if there was some "earthly", those responsible for the video would have jumped at a chance to debunk it. They have not. All we get is silence and "unknown".
I don't know what the Nimitz video shows exactly, but I've seen numerous interpretations of it, more of them incorrect, than correct. Some unreliable interpretations claim it shows something with exceptional performance, but that is a misinterpretation, and whatever it is, doesn't show any special acceleration capabilities as some interpretations claim. This is one example of an incorrect interpretation discussed, and there are other incorrect interpretations by other people:

Errors in Nimitz UFO g-force Analyses


And to your earlier point, yes I agree it's better to say:
"It's unidentified, therefore it's unidentified"

Than to say:
"It's unidentified, therefore it's aliens"

I'd also add that the pilot who thought he saw something alien with amazing performance capabilities (Fravor) couldn't be bothered to flick the switch to turn on his camera to record it, so we have no confirmed video of what he saw. I think people who say that video shows the same object are jumping to unwarranted conclusions when the eyewitness who shot the video says he can't confirm it's the same object. The video shows no amazing capabilities as Fravor described.

So the only reason I can see why people get excited about this video is maybe they missed the zoom change on the display like the physicist who analyzed the video did, or make other misinterpretations.

edit on 2019918 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



whatever it is, doesn't show any special acceleration capabilities as some interpretations claim.


The point in the video is valid, but that is not the only instance showing the amazing capabilities of the objects in question. Also, the fact it is airborne with no heat signature seems to be a pretty amazing capability.

I am not so sure they are really unidentified. The US MIC has vast resources. I would think they have been able to track where the objects come from and were they go to, at the very least.



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
the fact it is airborne with no heat signature seems to be a pretty amazing capability.
You lost me, what is airborne with no heat signature, this?


I wouldn't expect that to have a heat signature. If you're talking about the "Errors in Nimitz UFO g-force Analyses" video, what you see IS a heat signature so to say there isn't a heat signature makes zero sense. Maybe what you mean is you're surprised it's not bigger but you shouldn't find that surprising since the object may be at a considerable distance.

Here's a longer commentary on the same video, where Mick West doesn't say he's identified it as a commercial airliner, but he also doesn't see how a commercial airliner can be ruled out as the object in the video (or possibly another type of plane).

When witnesses say there was "nothing in the area", this was the same comment made with the Chile UFO discussed here, they also said there were no aircraft in the area where the UFO was seen, and it's possible that in both cases the UFO was simply further than people assumed. This was confirmed by Mick West for the Chile UFO which was positively identified as a commercial aircraft that was just further than witnesses assumed. So far I've seen no such confirmation of the UFO in the Nimitz video, but this is an interesting analysis:

Is the Nimitz UFO Video Just a Plane?


edit on 2019918 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Is the Nimitz UFO Video Just a Plane?


Why would the Navy call it unidentified if it is only a plane. Why would the witnesses not say what they saw were just planes? Why would the Navy let planes into their airspace?

I agree just looking at this one video you could make the argument it is just a commercial airliner. Looking at everything as a whole it just doesn't fit, not to me anyway.


The UFOs were detected by a variety of means, including the human eye, infrared, and radar.

There are at least two, maybe three types of craft, including one that was spotted underwater.


What We Know About the Navy’s UFOs



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
What We Know About the Navy’s UFOs
This is a complete lie from your source:


The clips, taken by Navy pilots between 2004 and 2015, show objects that pilots claim performed aerial maneuvers and moved at speeds impossible for known aircraft to accomplish.
The three TTSA videos don't show any such thing. David Fravor says he saw something that appeared to move fast but he and the other pilot who saw it disagree completely on the initial speed and anyway there is no confirmed video of what he saw. David Fravor's verbal account is the only "incredible speed" claim I'm aware of, the three videos don't show any incredible speed unless they are misinterpreted.


Why would the Navy call it unidentified if it is only a plane. Why would the witnesses not say what they saw were just planes?
Why did Chile's military not recognize the plane was a plane? They called it a UFO. I think one main problem was they assumed the UFO was a lot closer than it actually was, and ruled out some commercial flights they shouldn't have in their analysis as a result. Maybe some analysts in the US did the same? Why did the witnesses in Chile not say it was just a plane? They didn't know that, and I'm not sure if they ever figured it out to this day! It was Mick West who figured that out. A documentary aired recently claiming it was still unexplained when Mick West already explained it two years ago, conclusively.


Why would the Navy let planes into their airspace?


If you don't know the distance to the object, how do you know whether or not it was in the Navy's airspace? How do you define the Navy's airspace anyway? The incident happened over the Pacific ocean, didn't it?

Tic-Tac-Shaped UFO

The date was November 14, 2004, and the location was the Pacific Ocean, about 100 miles southwest of San Diego, California.
The Navy doesn't own the Pacific ocean nor all the airspace above it, do they? Only out to 12 nautical miles from the coast:

Airspace above the Territorial Sea

In 1988, the United States extended its claim of sovereignty over the territorial sea out to twelve nautical miles from the coastline. Presidential Proclamation No. 5928, Dec. 27, 1988. In accordance with that claim, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amended its regulations to extend controlled airspace and the applicability of overflight rules to the airspace overlying the waters between three and twelve nautical miles from the U.S. coast.


So 100 miles out should be way past the 12 nm territorial limit even if the direction was "southwest" from San Diego.

Anyway as far as I know it's been a common practice for US to test Russia's defenses and for Russia to test US defenses, see if they get noticed and where.

Russia and America Are Taking Turns Probing Each Other’s Air Space

I'm not saying it was Russian but I agree somewhat with your earlier comment that the pentagon probably knows a lot more than they have disclosed and they certainly have a lot more data about the incident which they haven't released and probably won't release anytime soon.

edit on 2019918 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
the fact it is airborne with no heat signature seems to be a pretty amazing capability.
You lost me, what is airborne with no heat signature, this?


I wouldn't expect that to have a heat signature. If you're talking about the "Errors in Nimitz UFO g-force Analyses" video, what you see IS a heat signature so to say there isn't a heat signature makes zero sense. Maybe what you mean is you're surprised it's not bigger but you shouldn't find that surprising since the object may be at a considerable distance.

Here's a longer commentary on the same video, where Mick West doesn't say he's identified it as a commercial airliner, but he also doesn't see how a commercial airliner can be ruled out as the object in the video (or possibly another type of plane).

When witnesses say there was "nothing in the area", this was the same comment made with the Chile UFO discussed here, they also said there were no aircraft in the area where the UFO was seen, and it's possible that in both cases the UFO was simply further than people assumed. This was confirmed by Mick West for the Chile UFO which was positively identified as a commercial aircraft that was just further than witnesses assumed. So far I've seen no such confirmation of the UFO in the Nimitz video, but this is an interesting analysis:

Is the Nimitz UFO Video Just a Plane?



"Mike West says they are birds. Silly US Navy. They should just pop over to Mikes reddit and get up to speed."
--Dr. Garry P. Nolan

Arti... you are about to lose your credibility.. the US NAVY with ALL their expertise has declared that the vidoes are genuine UFOs....not balloons...not drones.... not aircraft so please


NEW from CNN:

The US Navy just confirmed these UFO videos are the real deal
edit on 18-9-2019 by celltypespecific because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
46
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join