Breaking: George Knapp releases new UAP photos and reports taken by US military

LOL, We’re so jaded these days, I’m thinking....what if they REALLY ARE actual pictures of UFOs/UAPs and we end up thinking they’re fake because we’ve been screwed over so many times....

a reply to: johnthejedi24

Haha, I know - so many aggy and defensive people on here!

People trying to comment on it being bigger than a balloon or that pilots did multiple passes and all they ever cry is PROOF, WHERES THE PROOF....

... well, if you're asking them to prove their theories or comments, prove your theory that its a Batman balloon other than just posting an image of a balloon next to a zoomed in blurred image of the object. I agree it has similarities, but you can't then get defensive and aggressive to someone who dares to question that similarity and asking them to provide YOU with proof, when you can't infact prove that it is a Batman balloon

If you want to prove it - go and buy a Batman balloon, get a friend with a plane and set that balloon loose and track it with the plane and see what it looks like and replicate that image to prove it is a balloon!

Last time I came to this forum it was one for discussion and thoughts... not demanding proof when someone dares to refute what your thoughts are and shares a differing opinion

Whatever it is, if it was reported I'm sure there was more to it than we're being told... and maybe it is miss-information and is a balloon - but, guess what, there isn't proof of anything - so why can't we just continue discussing our thoughts free of people responding so degradingly

Don’t you people love keyboard warriors who apparently insist it’s nothing but Ballons, yet ignore Pilot observation than try to dismiss Pilot credibility with an obscure video?

It’s amusing to see those go at length to dismiss the notion that something happened that day.

Hell, we even have one User who shared direct experience on the matter of ballons and still he was rejected!!

It’s almost fruitless to argue with these individuals because the truth is, ET could land on their porch and they’ll scream “Fake” and slam the door shut. I think it’s a Mental issue, some deep seeded biological fear that doesn’t want to remember an ancient memory and resist it all accounts with ridiculous explanations.

Sorry folks, a Ballon doesn’t stay stationary in high altitudes in high winds. To disprove, show an exact image of a Ballon with similarly dimensions and recorded at exact altitudes and similar conditions, I’ll be waiting.

Secondly, Pilots are trained observers, some better at it than others, pick of the litter. Apparently these Pilots were experienced and knew something was weird and decided to snap us a few shots. As for having Phones on you, perhaps they were on Airplane mode. I’m sure Pilots have plenty of pics of themselves. I know I do from my old Army days and none I’ve ever shown off.

As for other things such as radar hits and what not, this is a publicly available article. I’m not sure of the optics on UFO(UAP) being unable to be detected by Modern aircraft, much less from a platform by the Greatest Military Power in the world, a scary notion in itself.

I encourage all to RE-READ the article again. Apparently, they saw all these things over the course of many flights, by many other Pilots. Even meetings have occurred, high level or not to determine what they are.

So far, this year has been hot. We’ve had swarms and unusual sightings by Military Operations. To me, that’s the significance of this.

As for why Civilians are leading this? Obviously these are the most familiar faces in this unusual field and if information is being pushed out, obviously their time in these field, whether good or bad, has paid off. If some nobody tried to push these off to the general public, it’ll go undetected. They need someone who can attract a significant portion of the masses to see.

Either or, exciting times, can’t wait for more!

a reply to: steve_ringuk

You’ve been registered since 2008 and only have made Eight post???

originally posted by: Arnie123
Don’t you people love keyboard warriors who apparently insist it’s nothing but Ballons, yet ignore Pilot observation than try to dismiss Pilot credibility with an obscure video?

Obscure video? Have you been hiding in a cave since 2017? Those three UFO videos being hyped by TTSA were eventually released by the pentagon and people have been making all kinds of noise about them, they were even a focal point of TTSA's television series. Those three videos received enough notoriety that scientist Thunderf00t made videos about them explaining all the misperceptions, as did another youtuber named Mick West.

For the FLIR video, we keep hearing pilots like Chad Underwood and David Fravor say it's accelerating at the end, but it doesn't accelerate at the end, it's just target lock and zoom change give an illusion of acceleration, but analysis of the video shows there's no apparent acceleration at all.

The Gofast video is relevant to pilots being unable to recognize a balloon when they see one, or if not a balloon some other slow moving object. It's another pilot misperception giving the illusion of an object moving fast but in fact it's not moving any faster than a balloon or bird would move.

The Gimbal is another video released by the pentagon, where the pilot says "It's rotating". We can all agree we see something rotate, but analysis of the video shows it's not the UFO that's rotating, so what is rotating? That illusion is caused by the Gimbal system which even the name of the video suggests, yet some people don't want to take the hint from the name of the video.

So are the pilots genuinely unable to figure out what scientists like Thunderf00t and other analysts have convincingly demonstrated using PROOF of what is going on in these videos, that the FLIR object doesn't accelerate, the GOfast object does not "go fast" and the "Gimbal" object is an optical illusion caused by the Gimbal mechanism in the ATFLIR system? Or, did the pilots eventually figure out these illusions, but they continue to pretend they are fooled by the illusions, as some sort of psy-op they have been asked to participate in for patriotic reasons? I don't know, but these things have been analyzed to death and are anything but obscure.

Pentagon officially released 'UFO' videos: BUSTED (Part 1)


US Navy CONFIRMED UFO: BUSTED (Part 2)


Pentagon officially released 'UFO' videos: BUSTED (Part 3)

a reply to: Arnie123

Yep. I went through some dark ages of not coming to this forum for a good few years and used another account as lost the details for this one...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Just an observation here, but, doesn't Mick West and Thunderf00t both simply analyse the videos and images just in isolation... so they don't take into account any of the reports? So the go fast, yeah could be a bird in that video... but weren't these fast moving objects observed for quite a while and they they managed to go and observe it in a plane (correct me if I'm wrong)... so surely they would know on their tech what a bird looks like... so wouldn't bother to go out and try to capture it

So, sure, on those images or in the video it could be a bird or a blur or a reflection on the jets canopy... but it seems they are only analysing the video itself and not referencing WHY these videos were recorded...

So the gimball they even mention on the video there were lots of them popping up on radar (sure, I know about radar spoofing and could be that) - but - I'm pretty sure Mick West just analyses the video as if the pilot was flying and happened to capture something and then he tries to debunk it - he doesn't account that this object would of been seen on different pieces of tech which is why the pilots were sent out to investigate...?

The tic tic video of it 'accelerating' to the side (which I admit doesn't look like it is accelerating) - was witnessed first on radar for a few days, then by Fravor and then another jet went and captured the footage - which then Mick West etc analyses in isolation without taking into account the rest of the report or story

I totally get their videos and they make sense - but not that much when there is more to the story for me

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Do you blog here for the Chinese Army or simply the PRC as the [see below]

US Navy CONFIRMED UFO: BUSTED (Part 2)

"debunk" video was produced by Thunderfoot who is of Chinese origin. Simply cut and paste the symbology below into Google Translate. Wallaw

Thunderf00t 987K subscribers Twitter Description The true beauty of a self-inquiring sentient universe is lost on those who elect to walk the intellectually vacuous path of comfortable paranoid fantasies.

雷足

Thunderf00t

So?

I think its hilarious that people (life) flying through space on a random planet argue about life flying through space on other planets.

Just looking at the photos, they're not terribly compelling and could be balloons. That's not to say they actually ARE balloons, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that they might be. The main thing that gives me pause about reaching that conclusion is that Navy pilots, who aren't stupid, were interested enough to take pictures and those pictures apparently went up the chain of command. That suggests to me that there may be more to this than the photos seem to indicate.

I still lean toward the balloon theory, but without more proof one way or the other, I'm open to alternate explanations.

This is not only going on in the air but also at sea with Navy warships reporting lights and unidentified uav activity around their destroyers less than 100 miles off the California coast. Big one for me is USS Rafael Peralta while travelling at 16 knots reported a light hovering stationary over it’s flight deck at night with less than 1 mile visibility. This kind of monkey business is well beyond the scope of consumer grade drones.

Bottom line is we can speculate all we want about what we see in these photos. We are getting reports, videos and photos from the US Navy who themselves are apparently scratching their heads as to what these things are. Again pretty big deal if you ask me.

By the way where was the battle of Los Angeles or great Los Angeles air raid again?...just saying

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

There's a vid here about that operation and Batman (and UFOs) do pop up in the instructional slideshow.. no balloons though.

Once again thought JGJ made some good points (especialy about lack of sources).

originally posted by: steve_ringuk
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Just an observation here, but, doesn't Mick West and Thunderf00t both simply analyse the videos and images just in isolation... so they don't take into account any of the reports?

Analysis of the video is analysis of the video. As for isolation, they compare analysis of the video to claims made about the video. For the FLIR video which Chad Underwood and David Fravor claim shows impossible acceleration at the end, they compare those claims that the video shows impossible acceleration to what the video actually shows, which is an illusion of acceleration perhaps but no actual acceleration at all, it's loss of target lock and a zoom change. So it's not isolated in that respect.

So their analysis of the FLIR video does impinge on Fravor's commentary on what the FLIR video allegedly shows. However, Fravor was involved in a sortie before the FLIR video was made. I have heard Mick West say specifically that his video analysis is not meant to say anything at all about the story David Fravor tells. Thunderf00t also admits he has no video of Fravor's story to analyze, in fact he shows this image in his video criticizing the fact that Fravor's mission was to ID the unknown and that Fravor doesn't think to flick the switch on his helmet to turn the camera on:


So Fravor says he saw something amazing. Maybe he did, but why is his camera potato? He admits he had one and all he had to do was flick a switch on his helmet to turn it on, but he didn't turn it on. So the video we do have is the one made later that day by Chad Underwood, where both Fravor and Underwood claim it shows something amazing, but it doesn't.

Doesn't the fact that video analysis of the video shows that both pilots are wrong make you wonder about the accuracy of the account Fravor gives where he has no video? Not just that, one of the recent videos on Mick West's channel is an interview he did with Kevin Day, trying to get Day's account as the radar chief for the Nimitz incident. So while West's video analysis is limited to the video, he's interested in the full story, and some interesting things come to light in the Kevin Day interview, where Day does not tell the same story about events that Fravor tells. So either Kevin Day's account is not accurate, or David Fravor's account is not accurate, or both accounts have inaccuracies. It's completely impossible that both accounts are accurate because of the conflicting parts of the stories. Day also says he didn't see the objects come from space or 80,000 feet like we keep hearing, he said that he had no idea of that at the time, all he ever saw was the objects at a constant level altitude, before the merge plot kicked in. It wasn't until days later that someone else told him that another system he doesn't have access to recorded something at 80,000 feet descending. So it's entirely unclear if they are the same objects, maybe they were or maybe the captain of Day's ship was correct, he apparently had his own theory about the 80,000 feet descending readings they heard about. Day didn't seem to think the Captain's idea was likely but who knows if the Captain had better information that Day, he might have, especially given all that was from an external source.

I totally get their videos and they make sense - but not that much when there is more to the story for me

Someone brought this up with Mick West on the Gimbal video, and said he only talked about the rotating object we can see in the video, but what about the audio where pilots talk about a lot of other things on radar? West replied of course he's only commenting on what we can see in the video. The audio is interesting, but there's no radar data to analyze regarding the comments about what they see on radar, so where do you go from listening to the audio? It's a dead end unless more data is released like the radar data, which I don't see happening. The thing is when all the major claims in what we can see are proven false, then to me the other claims about what we can't see become less interesting.

I'd still like to know what they saw a fleet of on radar, or if that was just some kind of glitch or radar spoofing tech or what, there are some articles online about the secret technology for spoofing radar returns, among other things, so they may not have even been real objects. I don't see how speculating whether they were or weren't is going to get us anywhere. The military has the data, we don't, and we're not going to get it (I'd be very surprised if we ever do), so that's that. You want to get excited about that, feel free, but I have too much of a bad taste in my mouth from all the false claims and false hype about what we DO have data to prove false, to get very excited about things that don't show up in the video where we have no data to look at.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Approval through both George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell?

Not impressed. To me, they've both lost credibility a while back.

It does look an awful like the Batman balloon:

You are not getting it, are you? Do I really have to remind you that balloons do not remain stationary in high winds thousands of feet high up in the atmosphere?
Stop pretending that you know better than air force pilots. It's highly unconvincing.

Why so defensive? No where did I claim I know more than airforce pilots. I'm simply stating the visual evidence shows the same characteristics as the Batman balloon.
The top of the craft sweeps upward into 2 points, so does Batman. The craft has 4 points on each side, so does Batman. The craft has 4 arcs connecting those points, so does Batman. The object reflects light, so does Batman. You can even make out a faint outline of Batman. Amazing coincidence wouldn't you say?
I foolishly started drawing comparison lines when you don't need anything when it's this obvious. You actually need to purposely ignore and forgo the visual part to make it manufactured elsewhere:

It's not up to me or anyone to prove what it's not. It's up to you and others to prove what it is.

People want to believe sooooo badly that they throw out logic and common sense. It's sad really.

The first letter in UAP is a u for a reason.

If I or the US Navy can't identify the object, it doesn't mean it's a mylar balloon.

originally posted by: johnthejedi24
LOL, We’re so jaded these days, I’m thinking....what if they REALLY ARE actual pictures of UFOs/UAPs and we end up thinking they’re fake because we’ve been screwed over so many times....

I guess it's my fault for trying to keep and open mind while also recognizing the flaws in the available evidence. If somebody had only proven them to be truly anomalous and not just unrecognizable, I would be more than happy to look it over. But ain't nobody ever done that.

Are some of the images taken over the years of actual, honest-to-goodness craft from some other planet / dimension / timeline / whatever? Maybe. But how am I supposed to know?

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Do you blog here for the Chinese Army or simply the PRC as the [see below]

US Navy CONFIRMED UFO: BUSTED (Part 2)

"debunk" video was produced by Thunderfoot who is of Chinese origin. Simply cut and paste the symbology below into Google Translate. Wallaw

Thunderf00t 987K subscribers Twitter Description The true beauty of a self-inquiring sentient universe is lost on those who elect to walk the intellectually vacuous path of comfortable paranoid fantasies.

雷足

Thunderf00t

So?

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a disinfo agent so please stop your ridiculous accusations.
Mick West isn't Chinese and he came to the same basic conclusions. I don't think Thunderf00t is Chinese either based solely on appearance, I've seen plenty of Chinese people and he doesn't look Chinese to me, he's the man on the left in this photo:


If you want to know why he wrote the Chinese symbols for "Thunderfoot" on his youtube channel called Thunderf00t, you'd have to ask him, but I don't see him as being Chinese or having any particular Chinese agenda. I've seen people get tattoos of Chinese characters for no other reason than they thought it was a cool thing to do so I'm not going to try to guess why he wrote Thunderfoot in Chinese, if that's what you're on about.

Anyway I'll take your ad hominem as an admission that you have no factual or rational counter argument to what's presented by Thunderf00t. Both his arguments and Mick West's arguments are pretty solid, so I guess ad homs are all you've got, since you don't want to discuss the actual facts in the debunking videos.

originally posted by: karl 12
There's a vid here about that operation and Batman (and UFOs) do pop up in the instructional slideshow.. no balloons though.

Once again thought JGJ made some good points (especialy about lack of sources).

Thanks for posting that excellent video by Greenewald. I think he's about the only public figure in UFOlogy that consistently makes arguments which are quite credible and insightful and this video is no exception, I think he absolutely nailed the problem with the undocumented release by George Knapp, we have no sources as you mentioned, so no ability to verify anything. He says the intelligence community is probably laughing at the #storm they stir up with this kind of thing and they don't even have to lie about anything because we have absolutely zero documentation that anybody actually said anything. He also says this is gold for the intelligence community because it creates the smokescreen around the UFO topic that they desire to make any UFO sightings of secret US tech flying around sort of filter into the background noise of all this other "fluff". Again, I think he nailed it.

He also says we are going to be disappointed with the 180 day UFO report because the good stuff will be hidden in the annex, etc. I think that will prove to be a correct prediction, we'll see.

originally posted by: Sublant
The first letter in UAP is a u for a reason.

Neil Tyson: Remember what the "U" stands for.
Internet: "Aliens!"

If I or the US Navy can't identify the object, it doesn't mean it's a mylar balloon.

Greenewald says we have no documentation on what the navy, pentagon, or intelligence community actually said about the photo, but we do know that a balloon vendor on social media was able to immediately identify it as a balloon and it sure does resemble the balloon.

Another photo I found:

originally posted by: Sublant

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Approval through both George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell?

Not impressed. To me, they've both lost credibility a while back.

It does look an awful like the Batman balloon:

You are not getting it, are you? Do I really have to remind you that balloons do not remain stationary in high winds thousands of feet high up in the atmosphere?
Stop pretending that you know better than air force pilots. It's highly unconvincing.

Why so defensive? No where did I claim I know more than airforce pilots. I'm simply stating the visual evidence shows the same characteristics as the Batman balloon.
The top of the craft sweeps upward into 2 points, so does Batman. The craft has 4 points on each side, so does Batman. The craft has 4 arcs connecting those points, so does Batman. The object reflects light, so does Batman. You can even make out a faint outline of Batman. Amazing coincidence wouldn't you say?
I foolishly started drawing comparison lines when you don't need anything when it's this obvious. You actually need to purposely ignore and forgo the visual part to make it manufactured elsewhere:

It's not up to me or anyone to prove what it's not. It's up to you and others to prove what it is.

People want to believe sooooo badly that they throw out logic and common sense. It's sad really.

If I or the US Navy can't identify the object, it doesn't mean it's a mylar balloon.

Neither does it mean it's not human made.

"Preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
All needed by the claimants. No one has provided that. Certainly not any member here.

a reply to: steve_ringuk You are not far behind me LOL

If ET was to land on the Whitehouse lawn some people on here would argue black and blue that it was a lense flare or a bloody balloon!!:

I would take the word of the pilot's who were actually there than the "experts" on here lol

originally posted by: EvanB
If ET was to land on the Whitehouse lawn some people on here would argue black and blue that it was a lense flare or a bloody balloon!!:

I would take the word of the pilot's who were actually there than the "experts" on here lol

The point of the three pentagon videos is, you can do your own independent analysis of the videos. That should be more important that what is said by anybody here or anywhere else, if you are capable of doing the analysis.

If you're not capable of doing the analysis yourself, then you're at a disadvantage over those who can do it, but people are willing to walk you through it if you don't know how.

As for the topic of this thread, according to Greenewald at the black vault, we have nothing in writing nor have I heard any official source from the Navy or Pentagon say a word about the photos, not even statements from the pilots who were there and took the photos, so you can't really claim you're taking the word of someone who was there if you don't know what the people who were there actually said.