BREAKING: Pentagon Releases Declassified 13 Page 2004 Tic Tac UFO Analysis...AAV Not From Earth

So this is a military report, but it's using Wikipedia, Global Security, and the Lockheed website for references?

I personally saw the cloaking of the big one....the 400 foot cigar over Dallas....on a ground track to take it over midfield LOVE FIELD.....kinda low....I could not find a flight deck window....on it.....12 seconds of a true story....the mandatory editt.....no ten in the morning sun reflection like all the 757's and MD-80's

a reply to: Zaphod58


Alarm bells ring.

For all we know this was written up by Lou during his breaks.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Knapp says the report was prepared by and for the military , whatever that means.

a reply to: gortex

Then why are they using those sources?

This is an actual report prepared "by and for the military".

This is the executive summary of another report.

Notice the bottom of each page.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
So this is a military report, but it's using Wikipedia, Global Security, and the Lockheed website for references?

Yes, the AN/APS-145 section is just a copy-paste of this Internet page: www.engineerdir.com...

A DOD report? Hmmmm

a reply to: gortex

If you were working on a Govt. advanced weapon program and you collected some reports and typed them up from a janitors closet on your breaks and someone elsewhere in the Government read one of them....

Not a journalist but I'm pretty sure you remove ambiguity when reporting something as an "official report" by citing the author, commissioner and some sort of document reference so the people reading don't think you are just repeating what you are being told.

You know....true investigative journalism- not reportage.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah I did spot that and did think it strange , perhaps it was compiled by TTSA from available source material on the "incident".
The lack of identification on the report suggest to me it isn't an official report so I don't see why he claims it to be "Confidential" , other than for advertising purposes perhaps.

Ufology !

23 Year USAF "Camo Dude" still Active Duty... THIS IS NOT A PENTAGON OR ANY TYPE OF DOD REPORT!!!. This is a ham fisted summation of already open source internet info. Running B.S. Flag Around Field.....
a reply to: shawmanfromny

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: Zaphod58

Alarm bells ring.

For all we know this was written up by Lou during his breaks.

Yeah, from "deep in the bowels of the Pentagon" was probably a good way to put it after all.

So is this more hogwash form Bigelows group muddying the waters of serious UFO/UAP research and making "official" seem more like "made an hour ago at home"?!?

a reply to: Kurokage

The problem is there is no info given to be able to research it , all we have is an unidentified report and vague statements by Knapp.

The analysis report is not dated and has no logo, but four separate people who are familiar with its contents confirmed to the I-Team it is the real deal and was written as part of a Pentagon program.

The likelihood is that two of the four are Luis Elizondo and Dave Fravor and it was compiled by AATIP ... I guess.

Politico published a statement by a former staff member that, "After a while[,] the consensus was [that] we really couldn't find anything of substance," ..."They produced reams of paperwork. After all of that there was really nothing there that we could find. It all pretty much dissolved from that reason alone—and the interest level was losing steam. We only did it for a couple of years."
en.wikipedia.org...

If it was produced by AATIP then I guess it is an official report but without further information it doesn't really tell us anything other than the author of the report was already postulating that a disturbance in the water could have been a cloaked UFO.
At least it's something for Ufologists to mull over.

Read through it. My impressions

1. This does not read like an official government report. This is not how it is done. I once worked for the US Navy as a Systems Analyst and was responsible for producing reports on various aspects of operations. Not only does this report as presented lack ALL identifying characteristics typical of a report, it is written in an informal manner with way too few acronyms. My impression is that it was written by someone that has an idea of how he thinks a report should read, but missed the mark considerably.

2. The report is uneven. For example, it references USS Princeton and says the information is from Wikipedia, but declines to list the other ships in the Carrier Strike Group in a similar manner. And by the way, the ships that are listed DO NOT constitute a typical CSG. They are two destroyers and one supply ship short. That's not by itself a deal killer, but it is definitely not normal.

3. I also cannot believe an official report would reference Wikipedia that way this did. It's unnecessary just for starters. And it's laughable. It looks like someone threw in some footnotes so it would look more academic, but, of course, you wouldn't dare use Wikipedia for anything the least bit academic.

4. Beyond the overall strangeness of the way the report is written, when you look at the sighting itself, it's not exactly new material. In fact, it's pretty typical. We've seen this sort of thing hundreds of times before. Pick up any book on UFOs and you get the same kind of story. Man sees UFO. Man chases UFO. UFO runs away.

5. This, as it stands, does not represent any sort of official Disclosure. it was likely written by someone who either experienced or knew some of the people who experienced it and wrote it up unofficially for public consumption.

6. There is really very little you can do with this report. You cannot conclude, "Aliens from Space" for example. There is nothing in the report that indicates that. The object was not hostile. It didn't destroy anything. There is very little detail about the object itself except that it moved fast. There are no identifying characteristics. No symbols. No windows. That it is described as a "Tic-Tac" tells you how little detail there is. You can't even say it was a "craft" as it acted more like something alive than a vehicle.

To me this is just another frustrating account with some severe credibility issues. It is in no way "huge!" or revelationary. People who claim this are, I think, over reacting. I'm not claiming it never happened, but I am saying what we have here is another light in the sky.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny

Well, IMO, this news report that was aired last night, proves that our government has no idea on what the AAV (Anomalous Aerial Vehicle) actually is, but it's not from the US, or any other nation for that matter. The report states very clearly that, it "showed velocities far greater than anything known to exist, and it could turn itself invisible, both to radar and the human eye." Here is the George Knapp's Pentagon report on I-Team 8, that was aired last night. The link below the highlighted text has the video of the full news report AND a pdf of the actual Pentagon document!

In my opinion the US goverment knows very well what is going on but that knowledge is limited for those with "need to know".

...part of the overall distraction campaign.

HEY, EVERYBODY -LOOK OVER HERE!!

(and not over there ----- > )

More (stale) UFO eye-candy for the unwashed masses - followed by exhaustive discourse to keep attention, energy, and resources on it instead of ...?

Yawn. A Tic-Tac today. A Skittle tomorrow... A French-Fry, an Acorn, an occasional Cigar. All to keep us from knowing anything about the whole enchilada.

Now why am I suddenly so hungry?

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: shawmanfromny

I'll look forward to seeing the report if/when it comes out.

I wish they'd all stop with the UFO/UAP/AAV/'phenomenon.' When a bunch of people and technology have 'eyes on' something that's being flown intelligently they should call it an aircraft. Giving it all the voodoo and faux-tech terms makes me think of pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo. It's like putting a pig in a white lab coat then expecting the same respect as a doctor.

They've been so overused through the years that I now automatically wait to be BSd by whoever promotes them.

well then should rockets be called aircrafts as well?

Well, I hate when investigative journalists lack integrity and post potential BULLSH!T news stories. I did a little digging and it appears that George Knapp isn't releasing forthright statements to the public, in regards to the Secret Pentagon UFO Study and his involvement with TTSA and Coast To Coast AM. It seems that George Knapp may be benefiting from his position at KLAS TV as a journalist.

George Knapp appears to be using his positions at CBS affiliate KLAS-TV Las Vegas 8 and a popular late night AM radio show called Coast To Coast AM where he’s a co-host, to push both of the main stories and assist the book company TTSA in raising financial investment in the corporation.

Coast To Coast AM dedicated months of Sunday shows, days which Knapp hosts, to allowing TTSA employees a free-reign to say anything they wanted without any rebuttal, fact-checking, or questioning about providing evidence of the claims made. I personally believe TTSA was, and still is, paying for the radio spots, or indirectly paying the Coast To Coast AM co-host.

Knapp published an article on KLAS-TV Las Vegas 8 claiming Tom DeLonge opened a “Public Company to Investigate UFOs” when in fact TTSA is a book/media publishing corporation (read US federal government SEC Filings here).

I’ve scoured all Las Vegas 8 TV (lasvegasnow.com) articles written, and news segments televised, and could not find any negative coverage of Tom DeLonge, or TTSA, ever published or expressed by George Knapp or other journalists/reporters on Las Vegas 8 TV.

Unfortunately none of the aforementioned individuals involved in the “Pentagon UFO Study” or “Alien Metal Alloys” stories had provided any documentation supporting claims about the study’s existence. FOIA requests submitted by The Black Vault and others have been unable to prove any claims with either “no records found” or outright denials coming back from the government. This includs Elizondo’s resignation letter.

ufoseekers.com...

Like many of you, I yearn for UFO disclosure from our government, but unfortunately, as many of you have pointed out, this 13 page report appears to be no smoking gun. It more than likely is a fictious report that benefits TTSA and provides Coast to Coast AM material for a future talk show. At least when I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

At least when I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

The same here.

That approach is called being an adult, and that type of behavior is in short
supply these days, in the post factual era that we live in.

I suspect that if you were to study UFOlogy from 1946 onwards (if you haven't),
that you'd find this TTSA is just "more of the same" deception that started in
1946 (with the known Operation Rosetta / Ghost Rockets Psyop to rattle Stalin)
all the way to the present day in an uninterrupted stream of extreme psychological
manipulation

Now.. it's certainly possible, that for the first time ever, some nuts and bolts craft
might land on the white house lawn tomorrow. And after being shot and captured
and tortured, we'd then know such a thing was possible (unless it was all a hoax).

I'd find that very interesting! And I'd say, "Wow! I gave that less than a 1 in a billion
chance! But it happened! We live in interesting times).

But if you follow all the breadcrumbs, it's not that terribly hard to separate 70
years of BS, from the tiny crumbs that are not.

But unfortunately, the tiny crumbs aren't what people want to believe.

There's seldom any money to be made, by promoting what is true. It doesn't sell.

Kev

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Gotta love the sensationalism. "Somewhere in the bowels of the pentagon" But he already has it so it's not in the bowels is it? It's in his hands.

LMAO

Just an amendment to my earlier statement. The idea that this UAV is "not from this Earth" is simply not a valid conclusion. You might be able to get away with some sort of statement that it is not from any known government on Earth (and even that carries some pretty serious assumptions,) but it does not follow that the object is "not from Earth." I strenuously object to jumping on the "aliens from space" bandwagon every time someone sees a light in the sky. "Unknown" does not mean "extra-terrestrial." OK, rant off.