Five Reasons to Be Skeptical about that New York Times UFO Story

a reply to: Caver78

In addition read Strange California Sighting, West Texas Spanloader and Mystery Wichita Aircraft threads.

a reply to: JimOberg

I'm always interested in what you have to say Jim. You're very knowledgeable and I repect your NASA background. As far as the Chile helo sighting...aren't they all potheads in Chile? I remember the story on those trapped Chilean miners, who smoked dope to relieve the stress. I think there's a lot of stress in the CEFAA, LOL.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Spider879
I'll take the same view as Neil de Grasse Tyson, We don't know what the object is, he is clearly not impressed, however he did say we should investigate such phenomenon, NASA astronaut Mark Lee is of the same opinion.

Where was Lee quoted? Did he admit to any astronauts seeing UFOs in space?

He was doing an interview on CNN?? I think ,he said he and other astronauts saw many weird things, but all turned out to be explainable.

He also suggested the craft could have been some super secret black budget thing, both he and Tyson ,imo however didn't speculate about exotic mode of transportation or physics to get any visitors from one star system to the next.

Thanks!

originally posted by: Iridomyrmex
...And is the sudden, yet steady motion of the "tic-tac" off screen at the end more likely be a result of the ATFLIR pod losing track, possibly locking up?

Wouldn't the sensor's pitch/yaw indicators show that?

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: JimOberg

I'm always interested in what you have to say Jim. You're very knowledgeable and I repect your NASA background. As far as the Chile helo sighting...aren't they all potheads in Chile? I remember the story on those trapped Chilean miners, who smoked dope to relieve the stress. I think there's a lot of stress in the CEFAA, LOL.

I have smoked plenty while looking
long and far for unexplained aerial
phenomena and have never seen a single
thing I couldnt reasonably explain.


In this world of possible run ins w technology of non human
intelligence, all the Armed forces of any nation could be wrong
on many occasions. But if a single genuine encounter exits,
it’s the biggest story ever.

I'm trying to follow this through a lot of different threads, it's quite confusing at the moment.

Could anyone tell me if the two videos of interest have been released officially by the U.S government/agency it concerns, or whether this was released by the guy who quit his job for the U.S government?

NY Times are claiming the footage/pictures are " By Courtesy of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE on Publish Date December 16, 2017. " (in the captions under each), yet I'm seeing talk on here about it being Luis Elizondo who released them.


It's an important distinction, and I believe before coming to any conclusions, it's best to form an opinion on all the facts.

Someone help me out please.

originally posted by: AmatuerSkyWatcher
I'm trying to follow this through a lot of different threads, it's quite confusing at the moment.

Could anyone tell me if the two videos of interest have been released officially by the U.S government/agency it concerns, or whether this was released by the guy who quit his job for the U.S government?

NY Times are claiming the footage/pictures are " By Courtesy of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE on Publish Date December 16, 2017. " (in the captions under each), yet I'm seeing talk on here about it being Luis Elizondo who released them.


It's an important distinction, and I believe before coming to any conclusions, it's best to form an opinion on all the facts.

Someone help me out please.

The two videos have not been officially released by the government. It was released by To The Stars (Tom Delonge's media company that he's presenting as a UFO research entity). People are SAYING "This is an official video!" since the folks on Delonge's team used to work for various government agencies. They are assuming that one of the team members brought the films with them or got them from somewhere in the government/DOD.

But: we haven't been given the chain of custody of these videos, like Delonge promised. At least one of them (the "tic tac" video, which is supposedly from the Nimmitz incident) was out in the public back in 2007.

So unless I've missed something (which is most definitely possible), the videos are from To the Stars. Until we get the provenance/chain of custody, I don't think we can really assume it's from DOD. I don't think we even know if it was Luis Elisando who got the video to To the Stars. I think people are just assuming that.

a reply to: AmatuerSkyWatcher

The government wants plausible deniability so they give this kind of stuff to self interests they control


You see this group has security, intelligence, and biotech people inside of it.


And Delong attaches entertainment on this!

Perfumed scorpion

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Iridomyrmex
...And is the sudden, yet steady motion of the "tic-tac" off screen at the end more likely be a result of the ATFLIR pod losing track, possibly locking up?

Wouldn't the sensor's pitch/yaw indicators show that?

I'm not sure, hopefully someone with experience here can chime in. It's possible the gimbal system locked up, and at that zoom level a far away and/or small object would appear to instantaneously (yet steadily) glide out of frame. And perhaps a relatively tiny motion of the zoomed-in camera equals a large movement of the object on screen.

It also bears consideration that the pilot's testimony on the CNN interview reveals a very significant detail, which somehow is not included in ANY of the documentation available on the TTS/AAS website or anywhere else I can find. At 4:37, Cmdr. Fravor reveals that "there's a couple of shots, when it gets close, there's a couple of objects coming out of the bottom". This is not even mentioned in the pilot's report! The object is always described as completely smooth and featureless - nothing emitted or projecting.

This new detail would not only seem to imply that the footage of the fuzzy FLIR screen is perhaps clearer than the pilot's eyes-on observation was. It also reveals a lack of integrity in the "expert" analysis presented by TTS/AAS. It would be great if someone in the public eye would address these issues, but actual analysis of ostensibly the most important evidence in the whole of human existence seems pretty scant.

a reply to: KansasGirl

Thanks for the explanation, that was very kind of you.

This is all rather odd indeed. I may do an investigative thread on this when it's settled down, unless I'm beaten to the punch. There seems to be a lot of peculiarities around what appears to be legitimate military grade footage.

originally posted by: AmatuerSkyWatcher
a reply to: KansasGirl

Thanks for the explanation, that was very kind of you.

This is all rather odd indeed. I may do an investigative thread on this when it's settled down, unless I'm beaten to the punch. There seems to be a lot of peculiarities around what appears to be legitimate military grade footage.

I hope you do- I will look forward to your thread!

ETA: by the way, the folks who are shouting "this is disclosure of aliens!" won't answer when I ask specifically from where this video came, how it ended up at TTS. They ignore the question completely or deflect to something else.

a reply to: elevenaugust

Five Reasons to Be Skeptical about that New York Times UFO Story

Are they still paying shills?
1. The video is stamped "Courtesy Department of Defense. It's obviously from the DoD.
2. Why would he want to show them to anyone, that neither counts nor discounts that it's real.
3. And? What does that have to do with anything? It was in the Times, regardless.
4. Right from the horses mouth Navy Pilot Recalls Encounter with UFO Furthermore, In the moment of excitement people often try to find a rational explanation. If you read how fast this object was flying and the maneuvers it was making, it's clear that after they witnessed this they knew it wasn't possible for humans to do this!
5. I'd say this counts as evidence

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: AmatuerSkyWatcher
a reply to: KansasGirl

Thanks for the explanation, that was very kind of you.

This is all rather odd indeed. I may do an investigative thread on this when it's settled down, unless I'm beaten to the punch. There seems to be a lot of peculiarities around what appears to be legitimate military grade footage.

I hope you do- I will look forward to your thread!

ETA: by the way, the folks who are shouting "this is disclosure of aliens!" won't answer when I ask specifically from where this video came, how it ended up at TTS. They ignore the question completely or deflect to something else.

It's not hard to find out where the video came from Besides the article explaining in detail, we know the video came from the DoD. It has more than been confirmed by several people, many times over.

originally posted by: Staroth

It's not hard to find out where the video came from Besides the article explaining in detail, we know the video came from the DoD. It has more than been confirmed by several people, many times over.

Lots of people saying something over and over doesn't [gasp!] make it true. What does the DoD say about the origin of the video and their official role in releasing it?

While we're on open questions -- was Elizondo a military officer, or a civilian employee of the DoD, or contractor [for Bigelow Aerospace, for example]? And was this Pentagon room number a place where anybody ever worked [if so, how many?] or was it a mail room drop box? Did it even have an office phone number [and what was it?]?

it's interesting that the Defense Intelligence Agency said they never gave permission to release the videos and that the media is confused about the Pentagon program run by elizondo purpose.

the media claims that the Department of Defense is rebuttaling the DIA by saying there's no confusion and that they've been very clear stating “The AATIP’s mandate, when it existed, was to assess far-term foreign advanced aerospace threats to the United States.”

thing is the media is purposely being obtuse. the DoD is actually supporting the DIAs statement in a round about way.

the DIA is saying the media is confused in claiming the program was used to investigate alien spaceships i.e. "ufos" when it wasnt. the DoD is saying there should not be any confusion they've been very clear the program was intended to investigate possible foreign aerial threats from other nations not "ufos."

so they are both saying the program was not for alien spaceship investigations but for keeping tabs on possible aerospace advances by foreign nations.

a reply to: BASSPLYR


Wouldn't an ET alien starship be from a "foreign nation" of sorts?

Tim Printy's newsletter has some incisive comments on the reality of the disclosures.
www.astronomyufo.com...

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: BASSPLYR


Wouldn't an ET alien starship be from a "foreign nation" of sorts?

no not in the legal speak of govt.

a reply to: JimOberg

good pdf. just read through it. gives one something to consider before automatically going "its a space ship"

a reply to: JimOberg


Thank you. It was nice to have some backup there.