U.S. Government Report Finds No Evidence of Alien Technology in Flying Objects......

a reply to: game over man

A little unknown fact: the Navy fighter jets in the tic tac incident were not armed. That should tell you a lot about what’s really going on...

Come on man! Everyone knows it is human tech from the future, aliens are so unbelievable.

I think if it is not of this world it is alien AI. Machines are not affected by evolution or time/distance as species are. Could be self replicating AI traveling around for billions of years sending data by to a race long gone. That is about the only thing that makes any sense to me.

Perhaps now that the proverbial “Letting the cat out of the bag” is mainstream public... this gives whatever is flying the craft, manned or unmanned, the card blanche to start filling the sky’s up more and more boldly... hell, even a flight over the capital part deux

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

American intelligence officials have found no evidence that aerial phenomena witnessed by Navy pilots in recent years are alien spacecraft,

If they are not American made, then purely by the meaning of the word, they are in fact " Alien "

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

A little unknown fact: the Navy fighter jets in the tic tac incident were not armed. That should tell you a lot about what’s really going on...

Fravor said he was "armed" with a gun camera which he didn't use to get any camera footage of the UFO he was sent out to identify, though all he had to do to turn it on and record was flick a switch on his helmet.


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

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

American intelligence officials have found no evidence that aerial phenomena witnessed by Navy pilots in recent years are alien spacecraft,

If they are not American made, then purely by the meaning of the word, they are in fact " Alien "

They said "did not originate from any American military or other advanced U.S. government technology." That apparently doesn't rule out the batman balloon as being ours then, right?
U.S. Finds No Evidence of Alien Technology in Flying Objects, but Can’t Rule It Out, Either

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Lucidparadox

So alien beings just happen to create a spacecraft with the exact same design as the Batman balloon as shown?

Though there are lots of possibilities for the batman balloon. Could have been made in China, then sold in America and launched there before winds blew it over the Atlantic ocean.

Or the bokeh "pyramid" with the FAA-compliant flashing strobe lights like a commercial aircraft has? Our commercial aircraft are also not "American military or other advanced U.S. government technology", but also not alien.

At 28 seconds in that video he shows the commercial aircraft flying into Los Angeles and the USS Russell where that video was shot is right under them so I don't see how you can rule out it's one of those aircraft when the strobes flash just like an aircraft and it's right under a major flight path for aircraft.


The statement "did not originate from any American military or other advanced U.S. government technology" doesn't rule out commercial aircraft, or batman balloons, or other balloons.

The secret that this UFO report exposes

The text is better than the vid..imo

Source: news.google.com... d=US%3Aen

....”OK, so, based on that information, we know that:

1) There's no evidence that the various UFO sightings over the years are aliens.

2) The US government has no idea what these aircraft, in fact, are.

Which is, well, sort of sketchy? Because how could the government conclusively rule out the possibility of alien spacecraft when they know the sightings "did not originate from any American military or other advanced US government technology" and they have no way of explaining the movements of these UFOs?

Answer: They can't.”.....

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I was using the definition of " Alien "

belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing

www.merriam-webster.com...

So they have stated they are not American, so they are in fact Alien.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I was using the definition of " Alien "

belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing

www.merriam-webster.com...

So they have stated they are not American, so they are in fact Alien.

No. That is not what they said. Read it again. I quoted what they said in my prior post, which does not say that.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I was using the definition of " Alien "

belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing

www.merriam-webster.com...

So they have stated they are not American, so they are in fact Alien.

No. That is not what they said. Read it again.

I read it and it says this " American intelligence officials have found no evidence that aerial phenomena witnessed by Navy pilots in recent years are alien spacecraft"

Alien can mean.................belonging to someone else other than The US. It just doesn't mean ET.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What is funny is HOW ANYONE BELIEVES a GOV who has HIDDEN the truth the entire time. Oh a report huh? like project blue book id say.
Of course this is how COMPARTMENTALIZATION works. 99 percent of the military and gov does not know because they have no need to know.

Plenty of evidence they are not privy to apparently.

Well an Alien is chiming in..... finally!




I suspect news organizations will be Using ATS for reference materials from our threads and posts for their reports.

A game of catchup.

What’s happening now, makes the whole Qnon saga insignificant and a blur....who were they again?

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I was using the definition of " Alien "

belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing

www.merriam-webster.com...

So they have stated they are not American, so they are in fact Alien.

No. That is not what they said. Read it again.

I read it and it says this " American intelligence officials have found no evidence that aerial phenomena witnessed by Navy pilots in recent years are alien spacecraft"

Alien can mean.................belonging to someone else other than The US. It just doesn't mean ET.

Your incorrect statement was this one:

"So they have stated they are not American, so they are in fact Alien. "

The article says "did not originate from any American military or other advanced U.S. government technology" which doesn't doesn't rule out American commercial aircraft made by Boeing which could well be what's seen in the pyramid "UFO video, or American batman balloons, or other American balloons. You have to pay attention to the qualifiers they used like "military". American batman balloons are not American military, and are not advanced American technology. Thus they could be American and not alien at all, by ANY definition of alien.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Correct me if i am wrong.

Does The FAA not have to issue an " Air Worthy Certificate " for anything that flies i.e.commercial aircraft made by Boeing or anyone else ?

If so. The FAA is a GOVERNMENT body.

There's no full disclosure because we are basically apes trying to catch and study Lockheed aircraft technology from another world. It's not like we're going to shoot them down and arrest them.

Perhaps black projects that have contractors like Boeing, etc. have to follow these rules which I believe precedes air worthiness acceptance certs. Or...a higher classified certification process adapted for black projects.

14 CFR § 91.319 - Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.

Source: www.law.cornell.edu...

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Perhaps black projects that have contractors like Boeing, etc. have to follow these rules which I believe precedes air worthiness acceptance certs. Or...a higher classified certification process.

14 CFR § 91.319 - Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.

Source: www.law.cornell.edu...

That looks very comprehensive.

The " Tic-Tac " incident was 17 years ago. Would an aircraft still be still in am experimental stage after that period of time ? Seems far to long.

originally posted by: alldaylong
The " Tic-Tac " incident was 17 years ago. Would an aircraft still be still in am experimental stage after that period of time ? Seems far to long.

I’m sure Arbi will chime in......

But in general, an aircraft is ready for the air worthiness certification when the manufacturer say it’s ready to go through the process. Testing takes years for some aircraft...they vary between the different types. Typical for commercial aircraft “ By comparison, the certification of a new aircraft type can take between 5 and 9 years.”

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: alldaylong
The " Tic-Tac " incident was 17 years ago. Would an aircraft still be still in am experimental stage after that period of time ? Seems far to long.

I’m sure Arbi will chime in......

But in general, an aircraft is ready for the air worthiness certification when the manufacturer say it’s ready to go through. Testing takes years for some aircraft...they vary between the different types.

I should have also added, The Tic-Tac was actually flying 17 years ago, so therefore if it was man made, it must have been developed long before then. That would take the 17 years probably much further out.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: alldaylong
The " Tic-Tac " incident was 17 years ago. Would an aircraft still be still in am experimental stage after that period of time ? Seems far to long.

I’m sure Arbi will chime in......

But in general, an aircraft is ready for the air worthiness certification when the manufacturer say it’s ready to go through. Testing takes years for some aircraft...they vary between the different types.

I should have also added, The Tic-Tac was actually flying 17 years ago, so therefore if it was man made, it must have been developed long before then. That would take the 17 years probably much further out.

Here’s what’s said about military aircraft.... “ In the US, the military is not required to obtain FAA type certificates for their aircraft; the FAA is not the authority certifying a military-registered plane's airworthiness. They have the option of accepting an FAA type certificate (which they tend to do on aircraft based on civilian ones), but they run their own certification agencies for airworthiness, which are all that matters if the plane is in the military registration system.”

Here’s an Air Force pdf doc on the subject static.e-publishing.af.mil...