Could 'leaked UFO photos taken from US submarine in 1971' prove existence of aliens?

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: gort51

Not seeing it there...might be making it up.

Interesting history of the USS Trepang

In 1978 the FBI arrested 2 men who planned to steal the Sub, set out to sea, kill the crew and sell to parties unknown (LOL WTF)

In 1996 the Trepang was operating off the coast of Long Island when TWA flight 800 exploded over Long Island

In 1998 the Trepang received a "Joint Meritous Unit Award" for reasons unknown however the first recipients of the JMUA was the "Electronic Warfare During Close Air Support Joint Test Force" in 82.

Interesting history and conspiratorially compelling given one of the theories regarding TWA800 was based around EM interference and High Intensity Radiated Fields.

Certainly a very interesting history indeed!

It can always be a combination of both Targets and bona fide
UFO's. It always muddies the water if genuine articles are released
next to objects known by some, in this case, targets .

This way the experts can say "Oh I know what that is, so the other
photos must be mundane too. And then everyone says "Ok, case closed."
works like a charm

I think Springer likes UFO's.
Which makes me love this site even more.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
sScroll down for "Hi Res" images ( not scans)

www.theblackvault.com...

Apparently the researcher was sent them via email.

Given the method, the sudden appearance of "hi res", the website link and the lack of consistency in the pics there's something fishy IMO.

BTW has anyone seen the cigar UFO pic ( that looks like it's drawn) before?
Could of swore I've seen that in some UFO book pre -internet.

I agree on the part about the cigar photo looking familiar in fact, something at the back of my brain tells me it's almost identical to a mock up from some UFO documentary of a genuine reported sighting.

Oh and does anyone else see a sort of cylindrical protuberance towards the lower left hand end of the cigar or is that just an artefact? Protuberance, now that's a very ZombieWoof type word ...

Found the photos I was thinking of....



and

a reply to: FireMoon

Hello again Firemoon,

I am not sure what we are looking at to be honest. I think it's pretty obvious the US/NATO military were conducting manoeuvres and these pictures show something related to those manoeuvres. Was it all a test or something more. This occurred about 6 months after, the very odd, Schaffner Case which was also supposedly an exercise over the North Sea.

Maybe neither of the stories amount to anything?

But I am hoping for one of those brilliant theories you often formulate on this one.

No pressure though. MM

a reply to: mirageman

Not when it comes to Maussan, no.

Were your comments in jest, and Maussan hasn't got his grubby little hands on this?

I hope so this is the case and if so, well played, ya got me

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: mirageman

Not when it comes to Maussan, no.

Were your comments in jest, and Maussan hasn't got his grubby little hands on this?

I hope so this is the case and if so, well played, ya got me

whoops missed this in the flurry of threads that I've been involved at the moment.

Yes it was a subtly placed joke about Maussan hiring the Azteca Stadium after that slides fiasco. Once you get used to me this will get easier to spot.

When the story of the UFO / USS Trepang case broke, I immediately filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the military for more information, to verify the Trepang's location, it's crew manifest, and it's mission.

Although I feel strongly I can say the photographs are most likely Naval weapons targets, and there is a lot of visual evidence to support that, just today I was able to get the NAVY to declassify and release and the Command History for the USS Trepang for this time frame, and it confirms they were definitely in the Arctic, and they were undergoing different weapons systems tests. The document states about the Trepang's mission, "... extensive testing was accomplished which provided valuable data for new and improved weapons systems."

I did not feel there was too much doubt about the theory, but I wanted to offer this up to those who were curious about the investigation. Many news stories who have published this, have ignored the research done by myself, Alex Mistretta, and others, which is a shame.

I still see many stories on these photos being published, with no mention of this type of research, and although I think they are fascinating photos with an amazing history... I do not believe they are UFO related.

Here is the updated case file: www.theblackvault.com...

And specifically, the declassified documents can be downloaded at: documents.theblackvault.com...

Hi Blackvault, as far as I can see, I can't find any pictures of "balloon target" matching the (alledged) Artic pictures (even nearly).
Did you find any? Because of course, there are (very old) pictures of captive balloons, but that's very different from what we see in the (alledged) Artic pictures, because there is always a rudder/stabilizer (+ some "ropes" to prevent the balloon from rising).

There is no stabilizer on the Artic pictures, so I think that's a key problem for this hypothesis.

The first picture of the captive balloon you show on your article is very confusing, because the stabilizer is hidden (but definitely present).
www.theblackvault.com...
I wish you had noticed and put forward this important detail to your readers.


Another thing, it also seems to me that the pictures are not so well done if photoshopped (what I suspect).
If you look carefully at the "periscope marks", you will see some problems.
One of the "Artic" pictures has no periscope mark at all (the first picture on your page, with "fire" on the "UFO"), and one has 2 marks...
www.theblackvault.com...

To end with, I think it's important to note that the french magazine (I'm from France) who first released the pictures is not a very serious one at all ... (and however they already doubt of the pictures authenticity on the text).

Cheers

Well, they're all different things, aren't they? I mean, the clouds in the background don't match up to indicate they're sequential photos of anything. Some are taken during a sunny day. Others are taken during a cloudy day. Some, like the triangle shape, show something relatively small and close to the camera. Others don't. One looks like a typical mirage.

I'd say that these photos represent a mix of various events, some of them having to do with the destruction of some kind of blimp(s).

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Well, they're all different things, aren't they? I mean, the clouds in the background don't match up to indicate they're sequential photos of anything. Some are taken during a sunny day. Others are taken during a cloudy day. Some, like the triangle shape, show something relatively small and close to the camera. Others don't. One looks like a typical mirage.

I'd say that these photos represent a mix of various events, some of them having to do with the destruction of some kind of blimp(s).

Hi Blue Shift,
yes 3 of the pictures seem to show different "objects", but I see at least 7 of the pictures that depict an object that seems quite similar (cigar shape).
I agree all the pictures don't seem to be taken at the same time, neither from the same view/location (which in my opinion points in direction of photophopped pictures).
www.theblackvault.com...
www.theblackvault.com...
Those 2 pictures seem to have a different "framing" compared to the others (again, note the lacking periscope marks on the first, and doubled on the second).


Now what do we know for sure about the pictures?
_ The source want to stay anonymous.
_ The context given by the anonymous source was a lie (since Admiral say they never spot a UFO).
_ Some informations on the pictures (writings/marks) have been hidded by the anonymous source (as stated by the person from the magazine who received the pictures).
_The anonymous source did contact a magazine not serious at all (why not contacted a serious one?)
_The magazine mention they are suspicious about the pictures.
_Some of the pictures clearly looks photoshopped:
www.theblackvault.com...


So, in my opinion, everything is definitely pointing in the direction of an hoax/photoshopped pictures.


As said earlier, the target hypothesis is very speculative, as we have never heard about balloons/blimps being used as target, and especially as there is not a single picture on the web that depict that kind of balloons (there is always a stabilizer at the bottom. Blimps also got motor/pilot "cabin" on bottom).

So in my opinion, it asks a lot more speculations to consider that these pictures depict (never seen before) targets, or blimps (without cabin and motor), than just considering everything is a hoax done with photoshop.

Note It's seems very speculative to me, but I have no problem if people rather believe the anonymous source (who clearly lied about the context) had access to several confidential extraordinary pictures depicting very special events on various days, and that the pictures are genuine UFOs, or genuine (never seen before) target/blimp.

PS: if pictures are authentic, the alledged blimp just seem to be burning, I don't see anything to confirm it was destructed by a missile. Just another speculation suggested by the alledged (false) context.

a reply to: blackvault

Thanks for the update John and your work with the Blackvault.

Pity that Bluebook document issue couldn't have been sorted out amicably with Fold3 as well.

Negative retouching has been going on since WW2 to hide special equipment or weapons..Probably all the pics are done that way.

I saw an Amdromeda/Vailixi when I was 7.
Period.
I don't care if these pics, those NOT pics up there above this post, or anything else are "real," because I saw one when I was 7.
I honestly don't care if anyone believes me.
Those who do, I tell them about the markings on it.
Those who don't would never think to ask or believe me anyway.
So, yea, that's that lol.

To me, they all look like balloons of different shapes, possibly in various stages of inflation, angle or destruction.

a reply to: mbkennel

me too.

originally posted by: mbkennel
To me, they all look like balloons of different shapes, possibly in various stages of inflation, angle or destruction.

Hi,
if you can find just 1 picture of a balloon that looks like the objects depict in the pictures, then I will start to consider.
Problem is, there is not a single picture anywhere that matches the Artic pictures.

The only kind of balloon that could match, are solar balloons. But of course, using them as target as suggested by the pictures would be technically impossible and pointless.
Note balloon don't stay motionless near the sea. They either would rise, or fall in the sea, they would not stay motionless, waiting to be shot (or they need to be captive).

Here is a picture I've found that could have been used to fake one of the picture.

original:




If you look carefully at the object, you will see the outlines are not right, suggesting photoshopped.

Also consider, there is no information, anywhere, that any balloon has been used for "missile" test. This is just pure and simple speculation suggested by very unreliable pictures imo.

a reply to: mirageman

Heres the crux of the problem... all of this could be faked.

I know people don't want to hear that, but it's the truth.

Unless the photos can be independently verified as having been taken at that time, we're at a dead end.
Even if they can be dated to that time, there is still going to be more credibility to the notion that these are secret military tests of aircraft which were under development at that time.

And that brings me back to what most people would have to believe given the information we actually have... that these UFO's often seen by citizens are not from another world, but from this one.

No one is able to offer any evidence of any craft coming here from outside of our planet.
And in contrast, we know the following to be facts:

We have developed top secret aircraft, obviously.
We know that the development of aircraft technology is ongoing.
That there is a secure base for the development of such.
That Nazi science was on the leading edge of aviation and weaponry during WW2.
That much of what the Nazi's were working on would have been captured by America and Russia.
That many Nazi scientists, physicists and engineers were moved to the US.
That these people and their work led to the space program.

Given all of what we know, and without any evidence to the contrary, most people would have to come to the conclusion that the craft we witness are either American or Russian.

If you have craft like that, of course you're going to maintain its secrecy for as long as possible, to maintain your advantage over any potential enemy.

It would also explain why there is so much disinformation regarding these things, and why so many cases involved military/nuclear installations. Imagine if you have the capability to fly undetected into enemy airspace within minutes and entirely disable their nuclear capabilities... wouldn't you want to keep that weapon absolutely secret for as long as possible?

Note we already know the pictures come from an anonymous source, that has given false informations about their context, as the Admiral Sackett and John Klika both denied having seen a UFO, as alledged (thanks to the investigation of Steve Murillo).
That's already a clue.

But, generously, they also gave us a lot of other clues, from the pictures themselves.
For example, the "shadow" on top of the object, and the clear part, at the center, which really don't seem conform to the lighting of the rest of the picture.
Look at the shadows on the surface of the water, to compare them with the object, and to try to guess approximatively where is the sun.
If that's a legit picture, then it must be something really extraordinary, because it doesn't seem conform at all to lighting principles (especially the dark part on the top of the object).


picture from theblackvault

a reply to: Rocker2013

Yep we've already ran through the problems with proving/disproving what these posted photos show.

I know it's now a thread that runs to 8 pages but there is also a post by the owner of the theblackvault.com (John Greenewald) who posted these photos and (if you read his post - also filed a FOIA request). It's about 10 posts above yours

Direct Link Here

Although I feel strongly I can say the photographs are most likely Naval weapons targets, and there is a lot of visual evidence to support that, just today I was able to get the NAVY to declassify and release and the Command History for the USS Trepang for this time frame, and it confirms they were definitely in the Arctic, and they were undergoing different weapons systems tests. The document states about the Trepang's mission, "... extensive testing was accomplished which provided valuable data for new and improved weapons systems."

You can also use the link in his post to the update on the case as well (copied below as well)

Update Link

I suspect this one has been solved to a fair degree of certainty in terms of Shoopery and/or Targets.

The lack of submarine mounted surface to air weapons systems in that period is a head scratcher ...so if they are targets and it's not the Sub doing the firing ....why take pics through a periscope?

Obviously someone put the time in either via historical fact checking or PS but interesting none the less.

Good to see the owners of the site in question getting a bit of luck in terms of receiving the unedited pics....luckily they were omnipresent across all platforms to narrate proceedings and in the end turned out to be none sensationalist.

hmmm