Beyond Bigelow & BAASS, After AATIP and on To the Stars...

it's the same mo they've had since roswell. keep "explaining" it with progressively dumber insights, then when it can go no further shut-up till the next "flap". we know stuff other nations don't! lol

originally posted by: Guest101
A military jet from any other origin would be violating US military air space, and if it came from the ‘usual suspects’ it would be very far from home.

It was nowhere near US military airspace, I don't know where people are getting this idea. So no, a military jet from another country wouldn't have been violating anything as long as they stayed outside the US coastal airspace and it was way outside of that. In fact it's apparently not uncommon for Russian and American planes to skirt each others' airspace.

A Dangerous Game: Russia and America Keep Flying Their Planes Near Each Other's Borders
They can and do fly much closer to each others' borders than that. While military aircraft do have transponders, they are not required to be turned on over the Pacific ocean (AFAIK) and if they are testing each others' defenses, it wouldn't make any sense to have their transponders on when they do that, so I presume they turn them off for that activity.

The simplest explanation of the video is that this actually is the ‘flying tic-tac’ hanging around at the CAP of an ongoing military exercise, where it was also seen on radar. Where this ‘flying tic-tac’ came from is another matter.

Fravor said the area he was sent to would be a good location to find drug runner planes. Obviously the tic-tac he saw wasn't a drug runner plane, but I don't know why anybody thinks the object in the FLIR video would be the same tic tac, since it doesn't do anything like the tic tac that Fravor described. If Fravor expected to find drug planes in that area I don't know why the FLIR video couldn't show exactly what Fravor expected to find in that area, and performance wise it certainly behaves more like a normal airplane than the completely non-conventional performance of the "Tic-Tac". The pilot who shot the video says the performance was unusual, but the video doesn't show anything unusual in performance characteristics as he claims, and almost everyone who talks about the "acceleration" at the end doesn't seem to know what they are talking about, except Mick West who points out it's not accelerating at all, it's only a zoom change.

So while you might have a point about commercial planes using transponders, I'm not even sure that point is valid because maybe the plane did have a transponder but it was just so far away nobody made the connection. That's sort of what happened with the Chile UFO that Mick West investigated. It also had a transponder, but in years of investigating the UFO, nobody ever connected the transponder to the UFO because they didn't have a handle on the distance to the UFO and I don't think the distance is known in this case.

Another problem with assuming it's the same thing Fravor saw is that Kevin Day said he had multiple UFOs on his display that day, the screenshot below is a re-creation showing 9 UFOs. So if there were 9 of UFOs, if you sight another one later, according to my math you only have a 1 in 9 chance of it being the same UFO, and maybe less than that, could be 1 in 10 but I'm not sure Day remembers the exact number, but he recalls it was many.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Guest101

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Guest101
A military jet from any other origin would be violating US military air space, and if it came from the ‘usual suspects’ it would be very far from home.

It was nowhere near US military airspace, I don't know where people are getting this idea. So no, a military jet from another country wouldn't have been violating anything as long as they stayed outside the US coastal airspace and it was way outside of that.

This FAA map shows that the area where the Nimitz incident took place is a huge (300 x 300 mile) warning area.

A warning area is defined by the FAA as:

A warning area is airspace of defined dimensions, extending from three nautical miles outward from the coast of the U.S., that contains activity that may be hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft. The purpose of such warning areas is to warn nonparticipating pilots of the potential danger. A warning area may be located over domestic or international waters or both.

Planes are allowed to fly into a warning area, but when hazardous activities go on in the warning area Air Traffic Control will vector civil aircraft around them - if a warning area is ‘hot’, flying into it is considered foolish and very dangerous, even for drug runners.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
In fact it's apparently not uncommon for Russian and American planes to skirt each others' airspace.

A Dangerous Game: Russia and America Keep Flying Their Planes Near Each Other's Borders
They can and do fly much closer to each others' borders than that.

Military jets do skirt each other’s airspace, but these incidents tend to take place in areas where their borders are close to each other, such as Alaska and Europe (as your link shows). The area were the Nimitz encounter took place is thousands of miles away from the nearest Russian or Chinese border.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

The simplest explanation of the video is that this actually is the ‘flying tic-tac’ hanging around at the CAP of an ongoing military exercise, where it was also seen on radar. Where this ‘flying tic-tac’ came from is another matter.

Fravor said the area he was sent to would be a good location to find drug runner planes. Obviously the tic-tac he saw wasn't a drug runner plane, but I don't know why anybody thinks the object in the FLIR video would be the same tic tac, since it doesn't do anything like the tic tac that Fravor described.

True, the blob in the video does not perform unusual maneuvers, but it does look like a tic-tac and it is hanging in the Combat Air Patrol area of a 'hot' warning zone - something a drug runner would not do.

originally posted by: Guest101

True, the blob in the video does not perform unusual maneuvers, but it does look like a tic-tac and it is hanging in the Combat Air Patrol area of a 'hot' warning zone - something a drug runner would not do.

A tube shaped object that flies without unusual manoeuvrers does also look like a "missile ".

originally posted by: Guest101
True, the blob in the video does not perform unusual maneuvers, but it does look like a tic-tac and it is hanging in the Combat Air Patrol area of a 'hot' warning zone - something a drug runner would not do.

I didn't make the drug runner scenario up, so if you're dismissing drug runners in the area it's more of Cdr. Fravor and his wingman (wingwoman?) you're discounting, since they were apparently discussing drug runners after their training exercise was cancelled so they could investigate the radar blips:

Joe Rogan Experience #1361 - Cmdr. David Fravor
www.youtube.com...

At 7:45 he mentions his wingman and apparently he's discussing the nature of their assignment with her. It's not clear if she's the one who suggested drug runners but if she suggested it, Fravor doesn't correct her and say it can't be drug runners because it's a warning zone:

"off the coast of Mexico, Real World Vector, thinking probably drug runner, because you get the drug runners coming up the coast."

So they didn't seem to think drug runners are as unlikely in the area as you do, plus when you say it's risky to fly into a warning zone, well, it's also risky to smuggle drugs so drug runners aren't the most risk averse people to begin with. Add to that, Fravor discloses they never, well almost never, carry live ordnance during their training exercises because there are too many cases in the past when friendlies have been shot down doing that. So the drug runners are not going to get shot at by planes with no ordnance, all they need to do is avoid a collision. But maybe it wasn't drug runners, all I'm saying is Fravor mentions that thinking in video above.

The main reason why it can't be the same Tic Tac that Fravor saw is that Tic Tac vanished. None of the 4 pilots saw it leave as far as we know, and the pilots never tracked it leaving on radar and I don't think the Princeton tracked it leaving on radar either, it just disappeared. So that was the end of that. When they said "it's back at the CAP point" that made no sense because nobody saw it go there, it had to be another UFO at the CAP point.

Now if you're trying to suggest with the Goddard's journal video that the UFO in the FLIR video has a tic tac shape, maybe, but we know it can't be the tic tac Fravor saw since that one just disappeared, and Goddard's journal sort of cherry picked those scenes because it doesn't look like a tic tac at all in other scenes in that video. If Goddard's Journal is right about the solar heating, then he's wrong about it implying a white tic-tac. White is the most reflective color, black is the most absorbent color so if you want to get solar heating, use black (see the solar balloons below). Fravor said the Tic Tac he saw was white.

Fravor also said the Tic Tac he saw was moving. Well if it's moving, the air flow over the surfaces is going to tend to affect the temperatures on the surface. If you think it's getting hot on top from solar heating, what can do that is something that doesn't move much with respect to the wind, like a balloon. So I don't know if his solar heating analysis is correct or not, but if it is, it doesn't imply a white tic tac but something more like a black solar balloon, maybe like a shorter version of one of these (or helium balloon, doesn't have to be air-filled like these):




Those are hand made so they can be made to any length you want but you could easily make them shorter in a tic tac shape.

So, if his analysis suggests the object in the FLIR video was a balloon, then the question I have is, why did the pilot only get it on FLIR, and not close in for a visual sighting? Was he running low on fuel or something and had to head back before he could get a visual? It shouldn't have been too hard to close in on a balloon, if that's what it was. I'm not sure what it was since the analysis you posted suggests a balloon (whether Goddard's Journal realizes that or not). I tried to see if I saw anything in the video that rules out a balloon but I didn't notice anything that does. It's a very mundane object in terms of performance.

You're right that Mick West's "possibly a plane" is just speculation, he also mentions drones and balloons (as mentioned on the video release form), but the main point is that the video doesn't show any interesting or advanced technology, and you agree with that. West even allows that it could be aliens, but he suspects that given how mundane the performance is, he thinks the true explanation is probably a lot more boring than that, talking about the video only, not the eyewitness accounts of Fravor and his wingman and their WSOs.

New Navy UFO Videos

...I'm not explaining any eyewitness accounts. These three videos are not as interesting as they seem and they have quite plausible explanations. The Navy probably arrived at similar conclusions - that these are simply unidentified aircraft, drones, or balloons - but because of the default operational secrecy regulations nobody can talk about it. And that opened the door to all this speculation. Hopefully, I've cleared it up a little. Visiting aliens are always a possible explanation for any UFO video, but these videos don't show evidence of any kind of advanced technology - so, unfortunately, the real explanations, while fun to investigate, are probably pretty boring.

"MOD's Former Investigator: UFOs Now 'Into The Mainstream'

Nick Pope is a man who knows about UFOs.

He should, he worked on Project Condign, the UK Ministry of Defence's study of UFO phenomena.

He believes the “US themselves” seem to have ruled out the UFOs as “some sort of foreign military drone”, and through declassifying the footage have also debunked the theory the objects are classified US military aircraft.

“The fact that these videos have been put out does suggest that this isn’t black project technology because, if so, why would you put this on show for all the world to see when normally you’d be covering it up, hiding it,” he said."

The whole stuff:

Nick Pope on disclosure

a reply to: Cornissa

You have to come back to what the videos display; nothing that can be identified; therefore in my opinion it wouldn't matter if it was a "black project" because there is nothing discernible in the videos anyway; which means nothing classified is being shown. The same goes for the actual videos themselves; they do not display any "sources & methods" which is also the same reason we will never see any information; like the SPY-1 radar data to corroborate the story because it would give away "sources & methods".

The US are hardly going to state ;
"God darn, it is a Black Project, its a good job those Navy boys didn't get better footage; Jeezzz that would have made us look stupid and cost us Millions/Billions".

If they were Classified aircraft - using the same logic - they aren't going to uncover it themselves either and admit it, "unidentified" is just Dandy!

The whole thing is more than likely extremely embarrassing for the DoD / Pentagon that they have to make any comments on this at all. Yet, I am open to the idea that this was all planned by some sneaky little squirrels a few years ago...

As for Nick; well he sure has made a career out of UFO cases - I don't know if he has actually added anything of value other than being a talking head on american news broadcasts every so often. Nick was an employee of the MOD from 1991 to 1994 and was not involved with Condign due to it not starting a few years (1996) after Nick left the MoD. The study concluded in 2000

a reply to: pigsy2400

Agreed. The UFO in the videos can be anything. Still waiting for some better videos. If they really want to say: "hey the aliens are here!" they need to release better than these grainy stuff.

This is a big nothingburger for now. I wonder...what next?

Ps: thanks for your insight!

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The main reason why it can't be the same Tic Tac that Fravor saw is that Tic Tac vanished. None of the 4 pilots saw it leave as far as we know, and the pilots never tracked it leaving on radar and I don't think the Princeton tracked it leaving on radar either, it just disappeared. So that was the end of that. When they said "it's back at the CAP point" that made no sense because nobody saw it go there, it had to be another UFO at the CAP point.

What the Princeton radar saw right after the tic-tac got away from Fravor was first nothing and moments later, suddenly, an unidentified return in the CAP area. They never saw the thing approaching so that seems to rule out a plane at normal speed. I don't see why it HAD to be another UFO, though it could have been.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If Goddard's Journal is right about the solar heating, then he's wrong about it implying a white tic-tac. White is the most reflective color, black is the most absorbent color so if you want to get solar heating, use black (see the solar balloons below). Fravor said the Tic Tac he saw was white.

I used Goddard's video to show that the combination of black & white TV and IR images show a perfect tic-tac shape.

As for the interpretation of Goddard’s journal, I think he got it wrong. The bright top of the tic-tac in the IR images is not caused by solar warming but simply by the reflection of sunlight on the white tic-tac surface - the IR part of this reflected sunlight is picked up by the ATFLIR.

In infrared mode, you would see (the IR part of) the sunlight reflecting off the white top surface of the tic-tac sticking out from the relatively cold surrounding air. The bottom of the tic-tac, however, is not reflecting any sunlight and has the same temperature as its surroundings so you cannot see it in IR mode – you only see the top of the tic-tac in IR mode.

In visible brightness (B&W TV) mode, the situation is reversed. Now the bright white top of the tic-tac is invisible because it is as bright as the surrounding air. The bottom of the tic-tac, however, is backlit by the surrounding air while it does not reflect any sunlight which makes it visible in B&W TV mode.

Note that air will scatter the blue part of the sun’s light spectrum but not the IR part, so the surrounding air will be bright in B&W TV mode, but dark in IR mode.

So, a white tic-tac shaped object with the same temperature as its surroundings would yield precisely the ATFLIR images you see in Goddard’s video: The top visible in IR mode and the bottom in B&W TV mode. The combination of these images creates an almost perfect tic-tac shape.

Goddard did not really cherry pick, he simply picked the parts in which the tic-tac was closest and the zoom was at it maximum value.

Something that makes me laugh; is when people claim that regardless of the blobs on videos - the eye witness testimony of the pilots should be enough because of how highly trained they are and that evidence enough.

1) - pilots can be some of the worst eye witnesses - there are studies to prove this
2) - no-one applies that logic to the pilot who said "its a Fing drone bro"- why ignore this guy, hes a pilot right?

originally posted by: pigsy2400
Something that makes me laugh; is when people claim that regardless of the blobs on videos - the eye witness testimony of the pilots should be enough because of how highly trained they are and that evidence enough.

1) - pilots can be some of the worst eye witnesses - there are studies to prove this
2) - no-one applies that logic to the pilot who said "its a Fing drone bro"- why ignore this guy, hes a pilot right?

Is it my imagination, or are the 2015 videos more or less ignored these days in favour of the Main Event in 2004 and its attendant fuzzy 'white blob' FLIR video? The "It's a Fing drone, bro!" may contribute to that, and the parallax properties of the so-called GoFAST footage may prove to be anything but "fast".

What still puzzles me about the Nimitz affair is why Fravor never turned on his camera, and neither did his co-flyer. Does that make any sense for such a seasoned pilot? Why leave it to a second outing? Has there ever been a satisfactory answer to that query?

I'm not saying that our favourite undated FLIR footage foisted onto ATS in 2007 had nothing whatsoever to do with Nov 2004, and was just randomly submitted to the Pentagon who then threw it into their miscellaneous UAV bin. I could never suggest that, could I? That would be silly.

Interesting.

a reply to: coursecatalog

Certainly a new direction for a Catholic scholar that's for sure. Maybe she's been digging into ATS in her down time...unless of course this is a hacked post again.

a reply to: pigsy2400

I'll leave others to debate the merits of the fuzzy videos. At the end of the day what do they actually prove? America's Navy (not the Air Force) has claimed they show something 'unidentified'. We can speculate endlessly until more information is forthcoming. And given the length of time this has all been played out over I would even guess that's exactly what was intended. TTSA is perhaps 'useful' to the US Navy in some capacity.

It's like arguing about Bob Lazar. It doesn't really matter if he didn't go to school or if he got the date and time right for seeing lights in the desert skies. What did he actually prove that takes the story forward? Thirty years later we haven't moved on.

The first video was taken 14 years after Lazar's story surfaced. It's now 16 years since that incident.

Why has there been so much focus on this one incident from so long ago?

Interesting that in the article Cornissa linked Nick Pope is quoted

Mr Pope’s own theory will not make him “popular with the UFO and conspiracy theory community”, but believes the release of the videos has “the hallmarks of some sort of intelligence operation - a psychological operation, a deception operation, something".

"It's as if the whole rule book on UFOs has been thrown out of the window and that makes me suspicious," he says.

Maybe he reads ATS.

I think we've built a case for that in this and the previous thread.

* Bigelow hoovering up UFO reports as a form of intel gathering for his chums and not sharing,
* A video leaked from the carrier in 2007 and claims there's more where that came from on ATS!
* Confirmation there was a classified report on the incident
* The formation of AASWAP straight after. Followed by DeLOnge road to TTSA.
* Then a whole host of people suddenly parachuting from nowhere into ufology in the media and on social media pushing the TTSA narrative.

It's all very American centric too. Well except for the Deutchsland factor where the first video appeared!!

The breadcrumbs of a long intel 'operation' are there when you look closely. But if that is the case, every single person involved in it will already have plausible deniability for why they do what they do and say what they say.

One wonders whether they believed this Nimitz stuff would have been a big bang…and not the long hangout dud that it ended up becoming.


I don’t think they thought it was going to be any big thing. Maybe Zondo did but not the schemers behind him since these weak videos were already out in the public sphere.

All they wanted to be was a continuation of control and they got it through TTSA since it has taken all the gravity out of the UFO movement, which had little gravity in the first place.

So rather than making UFOs mainstream they in-fact just folded up TTSA propaganda into a small segmented UFO community...a coup of a small country!

The mainstream needs constant embellishment or they will rebel and never even think of you again.

So this OP was a success and dovetails with the overt failure of TTSA.

It was meant to fail, likely.

originally posted by: coursecatalog

Interesting.

Well, she does have firsthand experience now I'd say. If she gets any battier it means they've turned up the power.

a reply to: mirageman

Agreed.

Recently, the CIA boasted in a new ‘history of the CIA’ book, using a museum-type collection of crypto machines sold to adversaries and 3rd world dictators, that the agency decrypted decades worth of sensitive communications with no one the wiser. Of course using a legit business.

This has from jump street — at least to me — pointed to a long term operation to outsource the gathering and collection of adversaries‘ capabilities vis-a-vie a clearinghouse of UFO videos/reports/etc that, on the face of it, is a legit operation called TTSA. And they get two bites at the apple: TTSA perpetuates a notion the USofA is just as confused as anyone as to what’s in the videos. A notion that — it stands to reason — the USofA is chasing its own tail, and disinformation/etc isn’t their MO this time.

I’m betting TDL disagrees strongly. I’m betting I’m right.

a reply to: Cravens

Yep Crypto AG was a Swiss shell company selling machines to encrypt secret communications starting back in the 70s. Secretly owned by the German and US intel agencies and spying on over 100 different nations who used their machines.

Of course nothing like that happens nowadays. I can't think of one single company dealing with alleged military secrets and ran by a bunch of spooks. Can you?

originally posted by: mirageman

I'll leave others to debate the merits of the fuzzy videos. At the end of the day what do they actually prove?

It’s pretty straightforward:

An gas or a solid object emits IR (infrared) light, depending on its temperature (the hotter, the brighter).

If one assumes that the object has about the same temperature as its surroundings, there will hardly be any difference in emitted IR brightness due to temperature, so the object is hardly visible in the ATFLIR’s IR mode UNLESS it reflects sunlight (which also contains IR light).

This makes the top part of the object lit by the sun visible to the ATFLIR in IR mode, while the part of the object in the shadow remains almost invisible to the ATFLIR in IR mode.

The part in the shadow is only visible in TV mode due to the backlit effect of the bright blue surrounding sky. The brightly lit top of the object hardly shows any contrast to the bright blue surrounding sky in TV mode, so it is hardly visible in TV mode.

Summary: IR mode clearly shows top of object; TV mode clearly shows bottom of object. The two modes combined will show the whole object (please read ‘solar reflected’ instead of ‘solar warmed’ in the picture below):



link to picture

a reply to: mirageman

Touché, my fave ATS scholar. I mean it may have taken a few weeks to dig in the weeds of TTSA, but once you produced that registry document showing “Allied Services to Motion Pictures” (or whatever the corporate double-speak was), the fix was in — at least for me — that we’re being duped.

At this point, there’s so much noise in the ‘data’ (I guess the vids qualify as the closest thing to data) that it seems obvious to those, that do their best to be a truly disinterested observer of the phenomenon and an a priori researcher, this has all the hallmarks of a fanciful game of three-card Monty.

I’ll always go back to the simple fact of: these alleged maneuvers and flight characteristics aren’t a problem of physics but one of engineering. Electrical engineering comes to mind and the fact MIT — without question or debate — has the world’s brightest, leading-edge engineering minds...the military isn’t even a close second and MIT is still wrestling with scaling up airplanes with no moving parts.

Maybe it’s the Mick West narrative of pilots — 100 years into the history of warfare with airplanes — misidentifying everyday balloons and airliners, compounded by a poor understanding of their equipment In their own machines, but I can assure it’s not a man-made object, if those objects DID physically exist.

So, we are left with: 1) *Insert your own view about the reality of ET/EBE/Aliens/Whatever* and TTSA’s piece in exposing/disclosing; 2) You can believe your own lying eyes 👀.

I believe I can lump you into 2) along with myself.

Really appreciate you canceling out the noise and working/researching knuckle-to-the-bone in covering this entire affair.

Kudos, bro. And keep it up