Extraordinary Until Proven Otherwise

Got suggested this video about the USS Nimitz and the USS Theodore Roosevelt encounters and thought you guys might enjoy it. It's quite well made and he mentions how the first clip was originally posted to ATS back in 2007. Kind of surprising to see no one else has posted this yet but maybe I missed it.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

just started watching it now, nice mentions of ignorant_ape and IsaacKoi

fame and fortune awaits you guys

Yeah I’m leaning towards black world craft

Doesn’t the navy hold all the patents for the individual technology on display by these objects ?

So perhaps operational “Space Force” assets

*Shruggs*

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Good video - balanced and summarises well what is known - recommend a watch.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Guadeloupe Island needs to be investigated.

a reply to: TritonTaranis

Doesn’t the navy hold all the patents for the individual technology on display by these objects ?

What technology is on display in the videos?

a reply to: Phage

Minty fresh breath

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Thanks for sharing this video CO. I learned a few things and I like how it was put together and presented.


QUESTION for any/all experts on the radar systems or surveillance systems in use at that time (if any). In 2004, were FLIR, camera or radar systems on the planes connected real-time to any centralized or CNC systems on the ships or elsewhere?

a reply to: Phage

Targeting gymbals with limits of rotation, glare, radar pings from flight capable organisms, etc...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TritonTaranis

Doesn’t the navy hold all the patents for the individual technology on display by these objects ?

What technology is on display in the videos?

Fuzzy blobs that don't do anything interesting at all.

The video even says the FLIR video is extraordinarily unremarkable.

Then it says: "it's only when you place the video with these stories that the video becomes remarkable".

No, it's exactly the same extraordinarily unremarkable video. It's Fravor's story that's remarkable, not the video.

It also mentions radar blips coming from outer space and descending to sea level in the blink of an eye, but there haven't been any eyewitnesses of any actual objects doing that to my knowledge. They claim that anomalous radar returns were ruled out because the system was re-calibrated, but that sounds rather ignorant since even calibrated radar systems are subject to anomalous returns. Personally I still have no idea if the anomalous radar returns represented something real or not, but if someone assumes they are real without any other confirmation of that, I suspect they don't understand all the ways radars can give false returns. Some of them are not accidental.

Great video, awesome ATS shot...over a million views too...but is he trying to debunk it? Seemed like it a few times. Will watch again. I recently saw a UFO special talking about an east coast sighting and used the same spinning footage, something seems weird about that. Actually just google east coast ufo and you'll see what I'm talking about.

originally posted by: game over man
Great video, awesome ATS shot...over a million views too...but is he trying to debunk it? Seemed like it a few times. Will watch again. I recently saw a UFO special talking about an east coast sighting and used the same spinning footage, something seems weird about that. Actually just google east coast ufo and you'll see what I'm talking about.

If by "spinning footage", you mean the "Gimbal" video, I noticed that the "tic-tac" video called FLIR is so completely boring that sometimes the newscasts don't even show that one alongside Fravor talking, they show the Gimbal video instead since it actually appears to do something, even if it's an illusion as explained here and big clue, the Pentagon released the video with the name "gimbal", so I hope it's not against T&C to say anybody who thinks the gimbal video has got nothing to do with the gimbal is an idiot.

NY times UFO explained


For anybody who can't watch the video, it explains how the apparent "rotation" in the "gimbal" video is an illusion resulting from the gimbal system design.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

That's very interesting, but my question, was it an east coast sighting or all from the San Diego sighting? They infrared footage switches from white to black, so what does that tell us about the temperature?

Another question, so if this UAP was just a jet and a whole fleet of them are all these pilots idiots? Hence the training? Same question for ground radar? So all the claims about breaking the laws of physics are lies? These pilots interviewed on all major media lying?

The third video of the tiny dot they lock on, the video from the OP tries to explain it as something moving slow like a balloon...but c'mon they're way out in the ocean. We're supposed to believe a balloon floated out how many miles resulting in UAP disclosure?

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: Arbitrageur

That's very interesting, but my question, was it an east coast sighting or all from the San Diego sighting? They infrared footage switches from white to black, so what does that tell us about the temperature?

You should watch the OP video, it gives the correct dates and locations for all three videos released by the pentagon. In the FLIR video, the pilots are switching between infrared mode and "TV" mode. The images are not quite the same.

Another question, so if this UAP was just a jet and a whole fleet of them are all these pilots idiots?

There are some verbal comments about "fleet" in the audio but we don't see them in the video. All we can really analyze in the video is what we see in the video.

Same question for ground radar? So all the claims about breaking the laws of physics are lies? These pilots interviewed on all major media lying?

I would like to think Chad Underwood is lying, because if he's not he's clearly incompetent when he says that the FLIR video he made shows an object defying the laws of physics. I would like to hope he's been asked to lie for some kind of partiotic disinformation spreading purpose, because I don't want to believe he's an idiot that can't tell his video doesn't show the slightest hint of anything defying the laws of physics:

Navy Pilot Who Filmed the ‘Tic Tac’ UFO Speaks: ‘It Wasn’t Behaving by the Normal Laws of Physics’

So, at that point I didn’t see anything with my eyeballs. I was more concerned with tracking it, making sure that the videotape was on so that I could bring something back to the ship, so that the intel folks could dissect whatever it is that I captured.

The thing that stood out to me the most was how erratic it was behaving. And what I mean by “erratic” is that its changes in altitude, air speed, and aspect were just unlike things that I’ve ever encountered before flying against other air targets. It was just behaving in ways that aren’t physically normal. That’s what caught my eye.

So watch his video and you tell me where you see it defying the laws of physics like he says...it doesn't. So what other explanation is there besides he's lying or else is incompetent? We can't say he saw something that didn't show up on FLIR, he says he didn't see it visually.

Another thing that doesn't quite add up that the OP video hints at when it said the first mention of the "Nimitz UFO" on ATS described a disc-shape, actually it was described as a silvery disk. then the description changes significantly, to instead of "silvery disk" to the white "tic-tac" shape. I find that odd, how did the description get changed from silvery disk to white Tic-tac?

The third video of the tiny dot they lock on, the video from the OP tries to explain it as something moving slow like a balloon...but c'mon they're way out in the ocean. We're supposed to believe a balloon floated out how many miles resulting in UAP disclosure?

All three UFO/UAP videos are unidentified objects. People have made guesses on what they might be based on their heat signatures and performance characteristics, but the only facts we have are things like those heat signatures and performance characteristics. One analyst thinks the "gofast" UFO might be a balloon (see embedded video below), another thinks he can see a hint of wings flapping (which I can't see) so he thinks it might be a bird, but we don't really know. All we can say is the Gofast UFO is not going fast, it's not moving any faster than a bird or balloon and it's heat signature isn't any different from a balloon. I don't know why you find a balloon so implausible, if anything gets far away enough, it becomes difficult to identify.

Just watch any airplane fly away from an airport. As it gets further away, you can't see the wings anymore, so if you didn't know it was a plane, you'd have to say it was an unidentified dot. Same with balloons. And the release form for the three videos mentions balloons so whoever filled out the release form (possibly Elizondo?) thought at least one or more of the UAPs was a balloon. See d. Subject Area: UAV, balloons, and other UAS.


"Go Fast" UFO Video Explained?


Actually "balloons" as in plural implies more than one, and I can't rule out either the gofast or the FLIR videos as showing balloons. The heat signature on the FLIR video appears to be just on the top, as you might expect with a solar balloon illuminated by the sun, and the analysis posted by George Knapp on his TV stations website says that UFO was hardly moving and all the closing speed was due to Underwood's aircraft motion, which again sounds like what a balloon would do.

But I don't know what they really are, maybe nobody does, only that all three videos show completely unremarkable objects doing very unremarkable things, whatever they are. And claims to the contrary yes are either the result of lies or imcompetence.

The East coast pilots described what sounded similar to airborne radar reflectors, here's a article looking at that possibility:

Are Some Of The UFOs Navy Pilots Are Encountering Actually Airborne Radar Reflectors?

Submarine-launched, radar reflector-toting balloons used to stimulate enemy air defenses can be traced back to a Cold War era Skunk Works program...

In fact, a near miss encounter with one of these objects as described by Navy Super Hornet pilot Ryan Graves states that the object was likely standing still, floating in the air, when the Super Hornet blasted by at a too close for comfort distance. In other words, it wasn't making any extreme performance maneuvers while within visual range. Instead, it was acting like, well, a balloon.

So it sure sounds like at least SOME of the objects they are encountering are balloons, but not all. The Gimbal video is not a balloon, the heat signature is way too hot for that.

The video analysis of course doesn't address what David Fravor or Kevin Day say. Their stories dramatically conflict with each other, so at least one if them has to be lying, as George Knapp indicated when he defended Fravor's version and said others must be making things up or telling lies about things that didn't happen. Even David Fravor's account has internal inconsistencies so even if he's not intentionally lying, there are problems with his account. I try to cut him a little slack since he's trying to recall something that happened 14-15 years earlier so probably any of us would get some details wrong going that far back with our imperfect memories.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Got suggested this video about the USS Nimitz and the USS Theodore Roosevelt encounters and thought you guys might enjoy it. It's quite well made and he mentions how the first clip was originally posted to ATS back in 2007. Kind of surprising to see no one else has posted this yet but maybe I missed it.

Thanks for that, it comes across as well-balanced and gives a complete picture of all the essentials. I really enjoyed watching it and basically agree with its conclusions.

The alleged longer video with `more UFO movement’ is mentioned as well. I have no doubt the Navy has a lot more data. I really wonder what the secrecy is all about after 16 years. The radar systems, IR sensors, etc. must have been replaced or upgraded several times in these 16 years, so there’s not much to be kept secret about their 2004 versions anymore.

Just because something is unexplained doesn't necessarily mean it's extraordinary. Plenty of stuff that looks extraordinary turns out to be simply old mundane stuff once there is more data found about it.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Thanks for posting this. I had no idea someone back in 2007 posted the original video. I found this video interesting. Not sure who the narrator was, but at one point, he did point out that he’s an untrained observer. So some of the things he stated about the craft being balloons was ridiculous. Navy pilots have lots and lots of training and are professional observers. So if they said these craft were defying the laws of physics, they most certainly were. And while the resolution wasn’t that great, that was the unclassified version. I’m sure there are classified versions of this that are much more clear and have better resolution.

No, those weren’t drones, balloons, or a submarine. Until the government starts taking this seriously, nothing will be done. I totally agree with Lou Elizondo that these craft are a national security threat. I started a thread last year on the series on The History Channel about these craft - www.abovetopsecret.com...

I believe there are some clips of these craft in that thread.

originally posted by: ChiefD
Navy pilots have lots and lots of training and are professional observers.

That helps them in identifying other known aircraft if they are close enough to identify, but if something is far enough away, even ordinary things like other aircraft can become unidentifiable. For example, Identify these aircraft that look like tic-tacs.


You can't, they are too far away. If they don't have transponders on, a pilot looking at that can't identify them either.

So if they said these craft were defying the laws of physics, they most certainly were.

Chad Underwood said the UFO in his video defied the laws of physics. Please point out at what time index in the video it doesn't follow the laws of physics. Hint: the UFO follows the laws of physics perfectly. The video Chad Underwood made is the one called FLIR.mp4 at this link:

www.navair.navy.mil...

Navy Pilot Who Filmed the ‘Tic Tac’ UFO Speaks: ‘It Wasn’t Behaving by the Normal Laws of Physics’

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Chad Underwood said the UFO in his video defied the laws of physics. Please point out at what time index in the video it doesn't follow the laws of physics. Hint: the UFO follows the laws of physics perfectly. The video Chad Underwood made is the one called FLIR.mp4 at this link:

www.navair.navy.mil...

Navy Pilot Who Filmed the ‘Tic Tac’ UFO Speaks: ‘It Wasn’t Behaving by the Normal Laws of Physics’

There may be a difference between what he saw on both radar and ATFLIR, and the contents of the FLIR1 video fragment. He even admits that the most compelling movement in the FLIR1 video is ambiguous:

Ergo, when the object kind of darts away to the left—
I was not aggressively maneuvering the aircraft in the manner that would make the FLIR pod would do that.
But look: At that point, I did not actually see the object aggressively accelerate to the left, as the video shows, to actually prove that.

Because you were at a distance where you couldn’t make visual contact with your own eyes—
Right.

And so what’s happening in the video is a little ambiguous as a result.
Right. Yeah. And that part kind of sucks, because I can’t confirm that the object aggressively accelerated that way. But I have my feelings, based off of my experience with my equipment — and also just logic, when it comes to, you know, physics.

The radar contact came first (at 40-30 nm), and only after it stabilized he could slave the ATFLIR to it (within 20 nm). Maybe the strange movements of the object made it difficult to achieve the ATFLIR lock in the first place and could only be seen on radar.

originally posted by: ChiefD
Navy pilots have lots and lots of training and are professional observers....
No, those weren’t drones...

Do you believe what the pilots say or don't you?

In the OP video, at 17 minutes or so it shows the Gimbal video where the pilot says it's a drone.
This is TTSA's analysis:

GIMBAL: AUTHENTICATED UAP VIDEO

The pilots aboard the Super Hornet are not only highly capable fighter pilots, but they are trained observers skilled at scrutinizing their observations and targets in order to ascertain “friend or foe.” They are specifically trained to look for discreet changes in shape, size position, flight attitude (angles), and speed in order to determine the nature of the threat. They are able to discern nuanced details that few people would normally recognize. Paramount to their training is their ability to handle stress and maintain radio discipline. In the footage audio, they are clearly struggling to understand what they are witnessing.

At 0:03, in the first radio transmission, we hear one of the pilots state that it is “a [expletive] drone” aircraft.

So the pilot says it's a drone. You say it's not a drone. Who are we supposed to believe? You might be right that it's not a drone, but you're contradicting the pilot.

Here's a pilot who got promoted to general, says he has 35 years experience as a pilot, and that he knows a plane when he sees one, and the UFO in the video being discussed is not a plane. Do you believe him?

General McInerey "That Is A Missile Shot From A Submarine!"

In 2010 US General and decorated fighter pilot Thomas McInerney was convinced that an airplane leaving a contrail was a missile being launched off the coast of Los Angeles. Experience and expertise does not immunize anyone to mistakes in novel situations. Listen to the General here. Listen to his experience, his rank, his certainty, the deference given to him, and his total wrongness.

The general with 35 years experience as a pilot was wrong, it's a plane, and I'm embarrassed to admit I fell for his alleged "expert" status, and for a while, I believed him when he said it wasn't a plane. Eventually I figured out that despite his adamant denials and his HUGE amount of experience and training flying planes, that it was a plane after all. That's probably the last time I believed what an "expert" pilot said.