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

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Rob808
Is it odd to anyone else that these things sure seem to interact a lot of the us navy? Like, it’s their objective or something? Also interesting, terrestrial options such as human derived or perhaps other options haven’t been taken off the table.

Do we or don’t we trust what they have to say at this point regarding the phenomenon?

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Where all we have are eyewitness reports, then we have to decide whether we can take such reports at face value. For a scientific analysis, that's a non-starter due to known, demonstrated and well documented issues with human misperception, especially with pilots, having some of the highest misperception rates of all classes of observers in a large UFO study.

Where we have videos, like the three videos officially released by the pentagon for example, we can analyze those videos, then it's not a matter of trust but a matter of analysis. You can demonstrate for yourself that both David Fravor and Chad underwood are wrong when they claim Underwood's FLIR video shows acceleration at the end, it shows an optical illusion of acceleration cause by loss of target lock and zoom change. The pilots who report on the audio of the "gimbal" video report that "it's rotating", but the UFO is not rotating, the rotation is an artifact of the Gimbal mount for the camera, probably why the video is called "gimbal", and the third video called "gofast" is also an optical illusion, resulting from parallax.

Now I could understand how in real time any of us including pilots might misinterpret the illusions seen in those three videos, it could happen to any of us. But what I can't understand is how, given plenty of time to sit down and analyze the videos, they would not be able to recognize the illusions as illusions. Fort example, it would be very easy for any high school student to make this graph from Chad Underwood's video, you can do it yourself easily.

www.metabunk.org...

It's further explained here:

It clearly shows the rate of leftward movement of the UFO does not make any sudden changes at the end of the video like Underwood and Fravor claim it does, and I find it very difficult to believe that they can't make this graph just as easily as we can to prove their claim false.

The UFO was said to be something like 30-40 miles away from Underwood when he took his video, no wonder it's hard to identify. Anything that far away is going to be hard to identify, and it doesn't really do anything interesting at all in the video as Underwood claims it does. So given a choice between trusting what he said and what the video actually shows, it's no contest, go with what the video actually shows, after you've corrected for the illusion. Same for the other two pentagon released videos, pilots are making false claims for those too, like "2/3 the speed of sound" for the gofast video which is not doing that. The pilots should be able to figure out their claims are false if they analyzed the videos. Why they are making these false claims, I can only think of two reasons, one of which doesn't make much sense, the other one seems to fit the overall pattern of what is going on.

"Go Fast" UFO Video Explained?

"Gimbal" video of "rotating UFO", which is not really rotating, explained as an artifact of the "gimbal" system.

What are those two reasons? I can say the sources at hand, the us govt has never been 100% truthful on the subject of ufos and that should probably be something to always considered while on the subject.

Or disregard all information and just keep looking for validation your alien saviors are here like many keep proving to be their case.

For the serious investigator, I enthusiastically recommend the David Darlington 1998 book "Area 51: The Dreamland Chronicles" (www.amazon.com...). Among its many characters are 'The Elders' John Andrews, Jim Goodall, Glenn Campbell (not the singer), Tom Mahood, and Mark Farmer ("Agent X"). Andrews, Goodall, and Farmer were long-time former military.

Andrews: "I talked to a guy who once worked on cruise missiles and another guy who was a master sergeant in the original F-177 acceptance program. They told me that they were bored one day and were driving around Papoose Mountain. As they were coming down the dirt road toward Papoose Lake, all of sudden from nowhere they were surrounded by security people. Their badges and IDs were taken and they were held for 30-or-40 minutes. Then they were told to get the hell out of there and never come back."

[Note that 'Area 51' denotes one of many areas in the greater Nevada National Test Site (http:\www.stealthskater.comDocumentsAreas_01.pdf). Other sites/bases may have their own areas/sectors/etc. Today's "Area-51" may be in Canada, Brazil, or under a lake or in a remote mountain. Think of the popular sci-fi tv series "Warehouse 13".]

"... ... In addition to flying saucer, other secret projects were thought to be under way at Area 51. (1) the Aurora; (2) the TR-3A "Black Manta" flying wing (a tactical high-altitude reconnaissance platform operating in tandem with the F-117); (3) the diamond-shaped quiet low-observable "Pumpkin Seed" carrying miniature warheads; (4) an air-launched hypersonic highly maneuverable glide weapon; (5) a double-delta-shaped vertical-takeoff-and-landing craft for special operations forces; (6) various UAVs outfitted with microwave, EMP, radiation-confusion, and anti-nuclear proliferation equipment; and (7) "Shamu" (capable of flying along the forward edge of battle without being detected on radar while relaying reconnaissance back to a command center and scrambling incoming electronic signals to confuse the enemy). ..."

Note that the above were the most popular rumored projects in the late 1980s. Other more secret projects were undoubtedly underway at this location and other places. Who knows what is going on in 2021 ?!

originally posted by: CyberBuddha
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Kevin Day says in the video (0:28:00) that you posted that on his radar screen the UFO dropped from 20k feet to about 50 feet above water in less than a second. No hearsay.

To clarify, Day mentions 20,000 feet which is not hearsay, he also mentions 80,000 feet which is hearsay. From his account there I never heard him say he saw the objects on radar much above 28,000 feet, but he did hear about sensor readings above 30,000 feet, up to 80,000 feet and perhaps higher too, that he didn't personally see, that's hearsay for the higher altitudes.

originally posted by: CyberBuddha
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The ballistic threat radar on the Nimitz tracked the UFOs from 80k feet to their cruise level at 28k feet.

That's the part that's hearsay from Kevin day since he didn't have access to that system and so far I haven't seen any direct sources, though I don't have much reason to doubt the account that something like that happened. What I do have my doubts about is continuity, like, how would you know if they are the same things, or is someone jumping to conclusions? Some analyst somewhere with access to multiple data sources may know the answer, but it's unclear from the data we have publicly available.

Later on one of them moved from 28k to sea level in a fraction of a second. Mick claims it went from 80k to sea level which nobody said.

Nobody said that? I've heard numerous people say essentially that same story, and the post I replied to when I posted the Kevin Day video said this:

"I believe they said these objects were tracked on radar going from 80,000 feet to 2 feet almost instantly, no sonic booms, and atmospheric friction didn’t melt the vehicles. "

Then I mentioned Joe Rogan said the same (thing more or less) at time index 6:15 in his video I posted which by the way, he has one of the most popular podcasts in the world so when millions of people listen to him say something like that, it stands to reason that some people are going to repeat the story as he told it. Rogan says it went from 80,000 feet to 50 feet in one second.

Mick West doesn’t seem like the sharpest guy to me. He’s got real difficulties remembering what witnesses said.

There are some confusing witness accounts and not all of them agree with each other, but people are saying what Mick West said, like Joe Rogan, though he's not a witness, but that kind of talk is circulating and people keep repeating it so maybe West is referring to the stories circulating like the one Rogan tells?

On top of that he’s no sceptic in the scientific sense. In the video you linked he states that it’s impossible to go from 80k feet to sea level in a fraction of a second. This is clearly just his opinion and not fact. He’s already made up his mind on what’s possible and what isn’t. Confirmation bias much...?!?!

Impossible is a strong word. Back in the Belgian UFO wave, the radars were detecting UFOs traveling underground. That's impossible, but you have to know some physics to understand why. Even if it was somehow possible for UFOs to travel underground, the frequency of the aircraft radar system is not the same kind of frequency used in ground penetrating radar systems, so it will not penetrate the ground. Why am I bringing that up since it's not the Nimitz case? To illustrate that radar is known to on occasion give us some glitchy readings which are not always reliable, and in fact even though Day mentioned he had a good signal quality on his radar returns, he was wondering if they were reliable and he told Mick West he had his doubts about that, at least before he sent Fravor out to check out a UFO.

So are radar readings showing a descent from 28,000 feet to sea level in 0.78s impossible (Day apparently reported this to Knuth in private communication, according to Knuth's paper)? Of course not, but can a solid object do that? Probably not, which I presume is what West was thinking when he seemed skeptical, but there are alternatives to solid objects. There is technology to project false fleets of airborne objects, definitely on radar, which since they are not real objects would have more or less unlimited maneuvering capability. Does that extend to projecting visual apparitions of phantom aircraft ? I don't know but it would seem to be a reasonable objective given it could confuse the enemy more than false radar returns alone. The details of these systems are secret so we don't really know their full capabilities, but here's an article talking about some of the little we do know:

The Navy's Secretive And Revolutionary Program To Project False Fleets From Drone Swarms

That's about modern systems, but electronic warfare capabilities have existed in some form for many decades.

originally posted by: CyberBuddha
Anyway, if you carefully watch the video of Day talking to Mick West you see that the radar system never lost contact with the UFO during descent. How that’s possible is as obvious as it’s classified...🤠

All the video tells us is what Day says, it doesn't tell us what the radar data itself would show.

For example, there was an eyewitness to the radar return for the JAL1628 UFO case. In that case, the detailed radar records were made public because they were FAA radar records, not military radar records. It was a huge printout of many pages of data and you had to pay the printing cost of $100 or so to get it, but it was available. When that radar data was analyzed, the analysis showed there were problems with the data, which did not behave like a radar return of a real object. That can happen with radar systems. That doesn't mean the radar operator was lying, just that you can't necessarily take everything you get from a radar system at face value. Unfortunately we in the public don't have any radar data to analyze from the Nimitz incident.

What might be even more interesting, is data from the E2 that was in the area. I heard a witness form the Nimitz events say that an E2 collected some data, but E2 crew members are not permitted to talk about it. Again that's hearsay, but the story does have some plausible aspects. For example, Day wasn't the only one seeing these things, as he said, lots of people on shore had access to his screens and it would make sense if they wanted to collect more information about what Day's radar was showing, that they would send an E2 in the area which is well suited to the task of not only getting better radar information, but it can also monitor a wide range of electromagnetic frequencies. If someone really wanted to do some investigative reporting on the Nimitz, they could try to track down members of the E-2 crew and see if they would talk, since Chris Mellon was asked about this and said there was no "NDA" preventing the E2 witnesses from talking. Has anyone ever tried to follow up on this lead? Not that I've seen, clue me in if they have.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

They don't know what it is but they know it certainly isn't alien technology. Sounds legit 🙄

That's what I said when I read this. No evidence of, but no evidence against either.

Misleading headline and an odd premise for an article.

Almost like they want to get people to not believe what they were forced to admit.

We don't know what they are.

Chances are though, if it were human technology, even another country's, we'd know something about it. Enough to say that it's human tech at least.

Kind of like Psy-ops , then? Sounds similar to the Foo-fighters mystery sightings back during WWII.

originally posted by: Rob808
There’s no victim blaming here, just like with the police brutality issue... or are you the victim? It must be hard to not be able to prove what you desperately believe in.

You don’t seem to have the actual desire to understand the issue at hand as much as have your preconceived ideals proved correct. Sticking with it’s gotta be aliens prove me wrong bro isn’t an argument. And yes, the subject of police brutality is unrelated to ufos, keep chasing the stars and avoid the truth!

a reply to: game over man

NDT is literally saying over and over again, "Remember back in the day when people claim they encountered a UFO and then the pictures on their phone disappeared? Well now you can live stream your alien encounter. And there is no footage of this!" He is saying this in every interview. He thinks a victim of an alien abduction will live stream their encounter just like how everyone lives streams police brutality. His own words.

If you encounter a UFO or Alien you are a victim. You didn't ask for that encounter, you didn't ask to go through that experience, potentially traumatizing experience, that you can't tell anyone because they will laugh, belittle, make fun of you and question your sanity.

He's blaming people with smart phones, that we're supposed to prove ET is real, because I guess his argument is we're the only ones saying ET is real while the military, NASA, astronomers, astro physicist, etc come up with a million excuses the phenomenon is not alien, but can't say what it is.

Except NDT is trying to persuade the public to question if the infared radar is actually working. He's also questioning the pilot's own observations.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you for addressing my concerns. I appreciate it.

a reply to: game over man

You are confused. NDT is simply saying that Navy pilots are legally blind, and the Navy’s $50 RadioShack radar needs recalibration.

What’s your problem?

Preface...think air and sea training ranges

Could multiple targets on a radar be affected and tested by the ongoing development of Electronic Countermeasures... ECM/ECCM interaction?

In laymen’s terms....there is only one target in reality, but the radar tracks multi-Ghost or mirrored targets?

Below is a chapter on the subject. It’s plausible in training exercises for the “enemy” (ourselves, i.e. onshore training based facility) to transmit false targets to ships or aircraft during exercises.

I think some possible answers to what is being reported is in, or derived, from aspects in the chapter.

Chapter 11 COUNTERMEASURES

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Preface...think air and sea training ranges

Could multiple targets on a radar be effected and tested by the ongoing development of Electronic Countermeasures... ECM/ECCM interaction?

In laymen’s terms....there is only one target in reality, but the radar tracks multi-Ghost or mirrored targets?

Below is a chapter on the subject. It’s plausible in training exercises for the “enemy” (ourselves, i.e. onshore training based facility) to transmit false targets to ships or aircraft during exercises.

I think the answers to what is being reported is in, or derived from aspects in the chapter.

Chapter 11 COUNTERMEASURES

How would this square with visual verification of the tic tac by 4 aviators on the first encounter? While one UFO separated and went close to the water the formation at 28k feet kept moving. It was later rejoined by the tic tac.

Are we talking about radar spoofing, with a possible tic tac hologram, and physically disturbing the water underneath at the same time?

originally posted by: CyberBuddhaHow would this square with visual verification of the tic tac by 4 aviators on the first encounter? While one UFO separated and went close to the water the formation at 28k feet kept moving. It was later rejoined by the tic tac.

Are we talking about radar spoofing, with a possible tic tac hologram, and physically disturbing the water underneath at the same time?

I have no answer for the eyewitness eyeball visuals....I merely present it as “possible’s” in terms of visuals concerning tracks seen on a radar scope.

Consider this aspect..... 11.2.2.8 Range deception. If a repeater were to simply retransmit the received pulse as soon as it was received, it would reinforce the return echo and would help rather than frustrate the radar. But if the received pulse (as opposed to the echo that returns to the radar) could be briefly sorted and then transmitted a short time interval later, the radar would first receive the weak natural echo-return followed by an identical but stronger pulse. If a repeater transmitted a series of time-displaced pulses, identical to the radar pulse, it could produce a series of spurious targets, each at different ranges

Consider this aspect..... 11.2.5.1 Alteration of Target Shape. The configuration of the target must be modified according to the principles of geometrical optics such that the large reflections are diverted to unimportant regions of space (i.e., not back to the radar). The designer should avoid flat, cylindrical, parabolic, or conical surfaces normal to the direction of the the radar illumination. These shapes tend to concentrate the energy and provide a large radar return. The target design should include the use of doubly curved surfaces that result in low radar cross section. Unfortunately, in many cases these principles conflict with other important engineering requirements in aircraft and ship design, resulting in increased expense and slow development.


Notice, “the designer should avoid” ......what if the designer doesn’t avoid but instead uses shapes like that or similar, intentionally by the direction of higher authority and development needs?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If someone really wanted to do some investigative reporting on the Nimitz, they could try to track down members of the E-2 crew and see if they would talk, since Chris Mellon was asked about this and said there was no "NDA" preventing the E2 witnesses from talking. Has anyone ever tried to follow up on this lead? Not that I've seen, clue me in if they have.

A possible Mellon'ism?

It is unlikely an avionics tech. would personally sign a technology specific NDA (as any third party would have the contractual agreement with the Navy- not Hughes as the employee).

However, if he was involved in field testing classified tech (as intimated by his allusions of capturing data for the "CEC Tech Reps") - he would likely have had to sign a standard Govt. NDA to cover all classified information he encountered in his role.

CEC tech reps eh?

I wonder who they were/what they were doing?

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: CyberBuddhaHow would this square with visual verification of the tic tac by 4 aviators on the first encounter? While one UFO separated and went close to the water the formation at 28k feet kept moving. It was later rejoined by the tic tac.

Are we talking about radar spoofing, with a possible tic tac hologram, and physically disturbing the water underneath at the same time?

I have no answer for the eyewitness eyeball visuals....I merely present it as “possible’s” in terms of visuals concerning tracks seen on a radar scope.

Why quote stuff that doesn’t apply to the Nimitz encounter? Why muddy the waters when we so desperately need clarity? I don’t understand how you’re helping to solve this rather than confusing the matter.

Again, radar spoofing doesn’t apply to the tic tac encounter because we had eyeballs on the objects. A pink pig may be flying around the moon right now, but it doesn’t apply to the Nimitz encounter.

Wow....I need some coffee..

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: CyberBuddhaHow would this square with visual verification of the tic tac by 4 aviators on the first encounter? While one UFO separated and went close to the water the formation at 28k feet kept moving. It was later rejoined by the tic tac.

Are we talking about radar spoofing, with a possible tic tac hologram, and physically disturbing the water underneath at the same time?

I have no answer for the eyewitness eyeball visuals....I merely present it as “possible’s” in terms of visuals concerning tracks seen on a radar scope.

Why quote stuff that doesn’t apply to the Nimitz encounter? Why muddy the waters when we so desperately need clarity? I don’t understand how you’re helping to solve this rather than confusing the matter.

Deleted by me...oooops

originally posted by: CyberBuddha

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: CyberBuddhaHow would this square with visual verification of the tic tac by 4 aviators on the first encounter? While one UFO separated and went close to the water the formation at 28k feet kept moving. It was later rejoined by the tic tac.

Are we talking about radar spoofing, with a possible tic tac hologram, and physically disturbing the water underneath at the same time?

I have no answer for the eyewitness eyeball visuals....I merely present it as “possible’s” in terms of visuals concerning tracks seen on a radar scope.

Why quote stuff that doesn’t apply to the Nimitz encounter? Why muddy the waters when we so desperately need clarity? I don’t understand how you’re helping to solve this rather than confusing the matter.

I’m not muddering .....if you’ve ever read any of my posts....I tend to approach the UFO subject unbiasedly, taking a look at pros and cons. Do I think there’s other life than us? Sure I do....Do I think there could also be a down to earth reason of the phenomenon? Sure I do. I try to look at both sides of the coin. What you read into my posts is what you take away, if anything, from them. It’s up to the reader to draw their own conclusions....I don’t believe I’ve given the impression of a definitive answer on the existence of UFO and Aliens...just “what if’s”...

Of course there was a period in my youth where I might have been an abductee....but it’s unprovable.

Unconfuse me...anybody.

Are there 2 reports due versus just the one June Report which was mandated approximately 180 days ago? Yes, I understand by the NYT, that the report is published but not public yet, hence their headlines of recent days.

Below is what seems to be another report, an evaluation, that’s due without mentioning the 180 days....it’s dated May 3, 2021...is this a separate and 2nd report? If so....to have been dated May 3, 2021....I don’t see how, in it of itself, it can be completed for this month of June. Evaluation reports take time in government.

From the document “We plan to begin the subject evaluation in May 2021”

“plan to begin” and finish by June? I’m not to sure about that. It would be considered a rushed evaluation...by all those agencies (page 2) to input. Imo.

Any thoughts in calculating time frames?

Perhaps this May initiated evaluation report, is to be included into the June Report?

I’m confused with the dates, and due timeframes between what appears to be 2 reports..not just the 1 June Report. They are just not reconciled in my brain.

It could be that despite there was 180 days available to work on the report, the DoD squandered the time and then decided to work on the report starting in May.....If that’s the case...then imo, it’s a rushed report for sure.

Document Source: media.defense.gov...

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

"I can’t open it up nagging subscription pop ups using my iPad mini...."

Block Javascript.
Reload.
problem solved.

This is a fair comment from the "Authorities". Unless they have physical artifacts that can be subjected to the Scientific Method then there is no telling what these aerial phenomena are. That pre-supposes of course that they are being totally transparent in their claim of not having any such artifacts