CONFIRMED: the DoD did release the 3 UAP videos: GoFast, Gimbal, FLIR (aka Tic Tac)

a reply to: 0bserver1

How do you know it's even big enough for one little grey?

a reply to: Peeple

I do not know ' It's a logical assumption. Are we not talking about a military installation that assesses to gather information for one thing only?

It's not that I wouldn't eat one of those things, hell I would swallow them whole but that would ruin the longlasting taste..

originally posted by: Peeple
How do you know it's even big enough for one little grey?

It's bigger on the inside than it is on the outside.

a reply to: 0bserver1

We are talking about an infrared camera with a targeting software. Lots of things can show up on those. It's not logical to talk about abduction and aliens and wondering where they came from at all.
They are here in our atmosphere they are weird. That's all we know. From what I have seen you can't tell if they're controlled by an intelligence at all.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Harry Potter told you that.

a reply to: Peeple

It's not logical to talk about abduction and aliens

Did I say, aliens? Well maybe we can call UFO's UAP's now and Intelligently controlled " avoidantly controlled" Than we leave the intelligence to us, makes it all easier

a reply to: 0bserver1



You said "...where they're coming from..." so I assumed aliens are implied.

Some abductees swear it was the military in disguise. Is that where you're coming from?

a reply to: Peeple

s that where you're coming from?

Yea I'm from a division called TAP6 " Tactical aerial phenomena division 6 " and are monitoring incoming and outgoing space/ air traffic ..

a reply to: 0bserver1

Haha, okay now I want a story.

a reply to: Peeple

Sorry, my imagination took a walk with me .. I'm just a curious guy about space-related things..

a reply to: moebius

Oh yeah? You tell me how the tic tacs fly or do what they do.

a reply to: Peeple

Ball lightning that mirrors the fighters movements, hovers above the ocean, and zooms off at extraordinary speed?

a reply to: PokeyJoe

Why not? Lightning can be very very fast and above water. There are stories about ball-lightning hovering through an airplane. What do we really know about that? And in this case the fighters were mirroring its movement.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: mirageman

I get where people question George Knapp and TTSA, but the main focus should be on the contents of the released videos, including the one just released from Russia. If you think that these are "just balloons or drones," then I have a bridge to sell you.

The fact that the Navy is now drafting new rules for reporting UFOs, indicates that even they can't explain what their personnel are seeing. Could it be high tech from one of our adversaries? Could it be unknown craft not from Earth? Does the Navy, including the USAF, consider UAP's threats to our military? These are the questions we should be most concerned about.

OK. However why should we concentrate on the content of the videos? They don't particularly prove anything conclusive.

I really think we should be questioning Knapp releasing this document without revealing how he got hold of it and why it was not released via FOIA to a number of researchers who have requested it.

The form quite clearly leaves total blanks in section 7 of the DD 1910 form he's supposedly made public.



Now before any one argues that the details are redacted then I don't think so. Other parts of it are clearly marked in black to conceal details,

The problem is that what Knapp didn't reveal is that according to other side of that form...which is provided here on Paul Dean's blog more than a year before Knapp pulled this out from the back of his sofa...



It's pretty clear that section 7 had to be completed and it hasn't been in the document released.

Remember Knapp's an investigative journalist. I don't think anyone doubts that.

How much investigation did he do on this document? It makes him look like an amateur.

a reply to: PokeyJoe

What has TTSA released that would show them to be untrustworthy? They’re the reason we know about this issue at all. If it wasn’t for TTSA we would know nothing about these tic tacs.

originally posted by: mirageman
Well TTSA did not exist when the tictac ufo story first appeared on March 14th 2015 in Fightersweep.

Not only that, but the 2004 video appeared in a 2007 ATS thread and another discussion took place in 2013:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So we have, apart from TTSA, a whistle-blower coming to ATS in 2007 with this story, a guy sharing the information on Reddit in 2013 and the fightersweep article from 2015. So three pretty independent sources all describing a very coherent and plausible story of an incident.

All of that pre-dates TTSA.

originally posted by: shawmanfromnybut the main focus should be on the contents of the released videos

originally posted by: moebius
Yeah, that would be awesome. Because if you actually look at the videos without all the TTSA bs, you will see that they show nothing otherworldly or extraordinary.

I agree, if we focus on the video content I see absolutely nothing remarkable. The only remarkable part of the story to me is Fravor's account of what he saw but for some reason he didn't turn his camera on, so there is no video of that object. The media likes to play a video made at a later time alongside Fravor describing what he saw, but the video wasn't taken by Fravor and it could be of an entirely different object, and it does none of the amazing things which Fravor described in his sighting. So yes, we can focus on the contents of the videos, but what is there to get excited about in any of the videos? Nothing that I can see.

Now if Fravor had bothered to turn on his camera and took video of what he described, then we might have some video to get excited about, but he didn't and we don't.

originally posted by: KansasGirl
Hate to say it, but George Knapp has proven himself untrustworthy with his spokesman-ship with TTSA. He's shown himself to be in their(unofficial) PR team.

What an ignorant statement. George Knapp is the single most trustworthy and respected investigative reporter on the field of UFOlogy of our time. Just because the information came from TTSA doesn't make him complicit with anything. Not to mention it was George Knapp who uncovered the actual official documents proving the DoD did in fact release the videos when there were many here on ATS calling BS on the videos to begin with. Add to that many other anti-TTSA blogs out there and to me it starts to feel a lot like a smear campaign from shills.

I'm not a fan of TDL and I find him to be an irritating spokesperson but the people he has amassed at TTSA bring a lot of credibility and weight to the subject matter at hand.

Accusing George Knapp of simply doing his job is an ignorant statement and in poor taste.

The most interesting part in all the videos is when one of them says, look there is a whole squadron of them down there! (or something like that)

originally posted by: mirageman

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: mirageman

I get where people question George Knapp and TTSA, but the main focus should be on the contents of the released videos, including the one just released from Russia. If you think that these are "just balloons or drones," then I have a bridge to sell you.

The fact that the Navy is now drafting new rules for reporting UFOs, indicates that even they can't explain what their personnel are seeing. Could it be high tech from one of our adversaries? Could it be unknown craft not from Earth? Does the Navy, including the USAF, consider UAP's threats to our military? These are the questions we should be most concerned about.

OK. However why should we concentrate on the content of the videos? They don't particularly prove anything conclusive.

I really think we should be questioning Knapp releasing this document without revealing how he got hold of it and why it was not released via FOIA to a number of researchers who have requested it.

The form quite clearly leaves total blanks in section 7 of the DD 1910 form he's supposedly made public.

Now before any one argues that the details are redacted then I don't think so. Other parts of it are clearly marked in black to conceal details,

The problem is that what Knapp didn't reveal is that according to other side of that form...which is provided here on Paul Dean's blog more than a year before Knapp pulled this out from the back of his sofa...

It's pretty clear that section 7 had to be completed and it hasn't been in the document released.

Remember Knapp's an investigative journalist. I don't think anyone doubts that.

How much investigation did he do on this document? It makes him look like an amateur.

It's easy to argue the document is redacted and just because it's not redacted in the typical blacked out manner doesn't mean it wasn't redacted.

Knapp asks Luis if he was the one who submitted the request for the release of the 3 videos and he (Luis) said he wasn't authorized to comment and that it was up to the DoD.

Unless your claim is both Luis and Knapp forged federal documents and are accusing the DoD of something they didn't do? Never in a million years does it make sense for a former 22 year veteran who worked for the DoD and an award winning investigative journalist to get together and blatantly lie about the DoD. That would be career suicide for the both of them.

This thread is about exposing the fact the DoD authorized the release of the videos. I've heard of the Nimitz (tic-tac) story years before TTSA existed but never have I seen the specific video made popular by TTSA so I'm not sure where you're going with that argument. I don't recall hearing or reading where TTSA claims they were the first to break the Nimitz encounter. Just that they were the first to release the DoD video.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The video in question is in fact the actual tic tac UAP referenced by Fravor and it was from that same day but on a seperate training mission which took place once Fravor landed back on the ship. It was taken by the fighter pilot Chad Underwood who met Fravor on the flight deck upon his return. So it is the actual UAP Fravor witnessed but not during (Fravor's) training mission.

Fravor said he didn't use his helmet cam to record because it was nauseating to do so. Nothing nefarious there.

a reply to: jtrenthacker

Compliance!