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

a reply to: schuyler

I completely understand what you're saying and admitted in a previous post, that this report is most likely some sort of PR stunt. However, if a Pentagon report came out, that was proven authentic by the UFO community and it stated, "The Anomalous Aerial Vehicle (AAV) was no known aircraft or air vehicle in the inventory of the United States or any foreign nation...The AAV possibly demonstrated the ability to 'cloak' or become invisible to the human eye or human observation," what other conclusion could you make? If the Pentagon concluded in an verified, authentic report that a AAV exhibited abilities of no known craft from the US or other foreign nation, it would either be an "alien" technology or a super secret black op project. I've seen an unidentified flying craft and being an "air force brat," I can unequivocally state, that it was no natural object or known aircraft that I've ever seen before. It left me perplexed and totally mystified, as my brain tried to search for logical answers to explain my sighting. I've never seen a black op craft, but I can admit there's a strong possibility they do exist, based on the eyewitness testimony I've read over the years. Why then wouldn't a sceptic admit the potential existance of extraterrestrial craft, if there's evidence that strongly supports it?

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Goodyear Blimp?

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: schuyler

Why then wouldn't a sceptic admit the potential existance of extraterrestrial craft, if there's evidence that strongly supports it?

Because the evidence does not support it. Just because you can't figure out what it is or where it is from DOES NOT MEAN "it came from outer space." That's jumping to conclusions. It simply is NOT "strong evidence." It is, in fact, ignorance (in the strict meaning of the term--not meant as an insult.)

a reply to: shawmanfromny

I could come up with 10 completely different, but equally or more
viable-sounding theories to explain this incident than the one most
people are so desperate to believe, despite their being no tiniest
evidence whatsoever.

But.

The brutal truth?

If the US Military and other state-supporting actors had originally put
forward the theory that giant Staypuft Marshmallow men, who were
invisible and really wanted to be our friends (and who also worked for
Jesus) were the explanation in 1946 & 1947, then the great majority
of people would be hypnotized by THAT rubbish theory,

not the particular deception that they decided to go with.

Kev

a reply to: shawmanfromny

The FY18 Unfunded Request list for the Air Force includes something like $800M for classified programs. And that's not even the classified budget for the year. They have dumped billions of dollars into classified programs, most of which are SAPs, which means the average person, even at the Pentagon isn't going to know about them. That's a lot of money into research and development of new technologies. All earth bound stuff.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

One thing that I find really funny is that those who appear as typical skeptics about ETH are in most cases the same ones who believe in all sorts of wild theories.

Opposite extremes have much in common.

This reminds me of a concept for BAE

Sounds like the one in the water was the mothership to the tick tack drone

Who knows what the US has out there

m.youtube.com...

a reply to: shawmanfromny


They are late. I released classified UFO information almost 30 years ago.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

I hear you, once you've seen something completely unexplainable it's had not to see something in everything

I've seen some of these orb UFOs up very close just a meters away, which also went translucent then invisible to the naked eye, accompanied by larger crafts on the distant horizon

So naturally this case draws me in, however we are also advancing pretty fast, but these craft I think we're still along way away from matching or producing

The tech is only in its infancy or idea stage, and the only reason we've had these ideas is because of the UFO sightings more than centuries ago

originally posted by: surnamename57
a reply to: shawmanfromny

One thing that I find really funny is that those who appear as typical skeptics about ETH are in most cases the same ones who believe in all sorts of wild theories.

Opposite extremes have much in common.

Really? Please give some specific examples of this. Or perhaps you just made it up.

There is nothing wrong with entertaining wild theories. Much of modern science arose as a result of such theories.

But if your theory is thoroughly debunked for decade upon decade, and there are vast mountains of fraud and wishful thinking adorning your theory

AND especially if you keep trusting proven bad actors..

Then you are not exploring a theory.

You've simply allowed yourself to be used to further the perpetuation of a hoax.

That is not science.

Kev

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: surnamename57
a reply to: shawmanfromny

One thing that I find really funny is that those who appear as typical skeptics about ETH are in most cases the same ones who believe in all sorts of wild theories.

Opposite extremes have much in common.

Or perhaps you just made it up.

Or perhaps you are well aware of the veracity of my observation and specific examples are not necessary.

originally posted by: surnamename57

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: surnamename57
a reply to: shawmanfromny

One thing that I find really funny is that those who appear as typical skeptics about ETH are in most cases the same ones who believe in all sorts of wild theories.

Opposite extremes have much in common.

Or perhaps you just made it up.

Or perhaps you are well aware of the veracity of my observation and specific examples are not necessary.

Sorry, but the assertion is yours and you need to provide examples. Otherwise you have zero credibility.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: carewemust

PDF LINK IS HERE (PDF)

Thanks for the link. This is from page 11:


When I first saw the FLIR video and interviews of Fravor describing a fast moving object, my first thought was whether they involved the same thing, because the FLIR video doesn't show any fast moving object, and so from that perspective, is not that interesting. In the pdf, one of the commanders involved said he thought based on the area of operations (sea near US-Mexico border), the object could have been some type of drug interdiction effort.

So going back to the Fravor description of a fast moving object, I noticed an apparent discrepancy or inconsistency with the other report on this incident released by TTSA which said that Fravor made copies of his gun camera footage, inferring that there was a visual recording of the object he described which we have never seen, and may not be the same object as in the FLIR video. Where is this gun camera footage mentioned in the report released by TTSA?

In that pdf it doesn't mention gun camera footage but starting at the bottom of page 7 ,it mentions that Fravor's helmet mounted system has a recording capability and since it was rarely used it didn't occur to him to use it. As someone said this raises more questions than it answers. It occurred to him to make a gun camera recording but not the recording associated with the helmet mounted system? (Assuming they are two different recording systems). Why no mention of the gun camera recording in this report, which if this is the only report you read would seem to infer that no recording was made at all of Fravor's sighting?

I agree the format of the report doesn't look very "official".

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.

Those look more official, thanks for the examples.

originally posted by: surnamename57
Or perhaps you are well aware of the veracity of my observation and specific examples are not necessary.

I have never made the same observation you described, so examples would be nice, to see what you're talking about.

a reply to: gortex

Real deal? There is another version but highly classified that will never be released, so there you go.

Where knapp goes, so does the money, and usually Bigelow and the other bob

originally posted by: moebius
LMAO so the report is the real deal because they are telling you that it is?

This BS show is hilarious.

I feel sorry for people like you.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: surnamename57

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: surnamename57
a reply to: shawmanfromny

One thing that I find really funny is that those who appear as typical skeptics about ETH are in most cases the same ones who believe in all sorts of wild theories.

Opposite extremes have much in common.

Or perhaps you just made it up.

Or perhaps you are well aware of the veracity of my observation and specific examples are not necessary.

Sorry, but the assertion is yours and you need to provide examples. Otherwise you have zero credibility.

This is not my thread and I'm not going to derail it.

As far as credibility is concerned, I'm not trying to convince anybody. I don't make threads. What I've said above is my opinion and, in view of what I've read around here, it is a correct one.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don't get your message. Should I feel disappointed that you have never made the same observation that I described?

One simple thing, in the face of all these threads - that are now automatically discredited by the same few it seems - is that these (so far) are only the recorded samples observed or measured by military personnel. Some people have their own personal reasons to distrust these sources, some have made well researched connections with previous so called players of the game that are now out to deceive us in the name of global mind games.

I think we really need to put more trust in the many hundreds of thousands of people the world over, that have given testimony of very strange and very personal experiences that live with them to this day. Not everyone is a loon, not everyone is a simpleton that doesn’t know up from down. They know what happened to them, or what they saw. It runs deep and quite often changes their life, and quite often for the GOOD.

Not everything is a deception, not everything is mind games.

Yes there may be a handful of characters you might not trust. But take the rest of the world into account. When someone describes their experiences, another voice comes along to relate it back to one of these players and shuts it down. It’s completely counter intuitive when we should be exploring everyone’s accounts, reflections and opinions rather than saying its all nonsense because they had a bad experience once.

Methodical shutdown, from the inside.

a reply to: firesnake

I believe a lot of people have experienced some phenomena that they don't properly understand.

But i don't believe professional con men, hucksters, intelligence operatives, snake oil salesmen and in particular the military industrial complex, as they have been caught red handed for 70 years.

All sorts of crazy phenomenon seem to exist; but if men from the government show up saying, "We are from the federal government and we are here to help you" --- don't walk but run in the exact opposite direction.

People take "attacks on the the big disinformation networks" as attacks on them.

This is sad.

As the chinese proverb says, "A dog always returns to its own vomit".

Kev