Breaking: George Knapp releases new UAP photos and reports taken by US military

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
These objects are NOT balloons or other aircraft/drones that are known to us, because:
1. They were able to remain in flight for HOURS without refueling with no base nearby.

Balloons can do that.

2. In extremely high winds they were able to remain completely still without drifting or tilting at all.

How does anybody know this? Balloons may not show up on radar (which was why the Roswell balloon train also carried radar reflectors). So if it's not on radar, then to a pilot flying by a balloon, the balloon may appear to be relatively stationary, even if it's blowing in the wind. I'd be surprised if they ever share any actual data confirming this claim, and I don't trust it at all. The same people who believe the government is hiding the truth about UFOs now seem to want to believe they are telling the truth about UFOs?

3. In trying to capture the aircrafts, the military failed. All drones would be using some type of wave or signal for controlling/manipulating the craft. All of our signal jamming tech was completely fruitless on the objects.

How do you capture a balloon?

4. The objects were so intimidating to the pilots as well as the admiral that they were reported to the oentgon and the senate had private security briefings in them.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false"-Director, CIA.

They aren't doing all that for some smudges on the glass.

How about doing it for a "disinformation program"? I am not convinced even slightly that pilots are intimidated by anything in those photos. Now if the photos showed this, I think the pilots would be intimidated:

Again, as MM mentioned..look at the channels these images are being presented through.

Going with balloons

Since G. Knapp joined the Tom Delonge/ To the Stars Acadamy and Luis Elizondo and the rest of the charlatans, I am skeptical of any of his reports.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lucidparadox

We have an acorn shaped craft, an opaque energy orb,

You mean an image in which the autofocus locked on to the instrument panel in the near field, rendering the object of interest out of focus?

That don't look to be shaped much like any acorn I've ever seen. Mylar balloon maybe, but not an acorn.

I can see the jump to the mylar balloon. That jet looks like it's higher than 10,000ft though. My understanding is a mylar balloon can't go much higher than around 7k ft. I could be wrong?

originally posted by: Encia22

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lucidparadox

We have an acorn shaped craft, an opaque energy orb,

You mean an image in which the autofocus locked on to the instrument panel in the near field, rendering the object of interest out of focus?

That don't look to be shaped much like any acorn I've ever seen. Mylar balloon maybe, but not an acorn.

I guess you didn't click the link where it showed an acorn shaped object in the video....

The video popped up on MW's YouTube channel:

Thanks, came to drop that video off. Popped up on my YT much watch videos

We all talked about it before. It was decided that it was a Mylar Batman balloon. However the object in question was stationary at high altitudes in a jet stream not moving at all according to the pilots.

So I guess it's worth brining back up again.

a reply to: NightVision

Ahhh, now I have to rewatch the video. I swore they said it was much higher and in a jet stream or very high winds.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Approval through both George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell?

Not impressed. To me, they've both lost credibility a while back.

It does look an awful like the Batman balloon:

You are not getting it, are you? Do I really have to remind you that balloons do not remain stationary in high winds thousands of feet high up in the atmosphere?
Stop pretending that you know better than air force pilots. It's highly unconvincing.

So... just photos? No radar tracking or other recordings? Just some photos. Okay. Regardless of the source, simple images are simply not all that compelling and certainly don't answer any of the most basic questions.

originally posted by: NightVision
I can see the jump to the mylar balloon. That jet looks like it's higher than 10,000ft though. My understanding is a mylar balloon can't go much higher than around 7k ft. I could be wrong?

There was some data circulating where someone took an extremely small sample of balloons and put them in a vacuum chamber to see what equivalent altitude they survived.

Trying to draw conclusions from such a ridiculously small sample probably from only one manufacturer of balloons, to infer what all mylar balloons from all factories worldwide would do is beyond ridiculous statistical abuse. Even the small sample showed such wide variation that it raised more questions than it answered, and if you used that data to project a maximum height the statistical projection for a larger sample was much, much higher than the figure you suggest. Add in other factories, materials, and manufacturing methods and then the data from a small sample from one factory are practically useless to try to claim what all mylar balloons globally are capable of. I have never seen any evidence this subject has been researched thoroughly enough to produce a statistically plausible statement, and even if one had such improved statistical data, there are also such things as statistical outliers. For example you might project a plus three sigma limit of 25,000 feet, but that would still allow for one balloon in a thousand to reach 30,000 feet.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Approval through both George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell?

Not impressed. To me, they've both lost credibility a while back.

It does look an awful like the Batman balloon:

How did George Knapp lose credibility with you?

a reply to: Lucidparadox

i have flown in similar aircraft and honestly your eyes can play tricks on you


the 'sphere' is clearly a weather balloon, the acorn looks like something stuck to the canopy and the 'blimp' well I honestly don't have an explanation for that, I would like to know in what order the photos were taken.

if he saw the blimp thing first they might have been excited and misjudged the things, they are still humans.

so this guy had an iPhone but didn't take extended video of it?

a reply to: Lucidparadox

Just to clarify - are military pilots allowed to carry iPhones when operational?

These objects captured the attention of US Navy fighter pilots ripping around in their hornet at altitude ( at least in the middle picture). They Most likely weren’t going slow, I’m not sure what their TAS would be cruising around at 30,000’ but a Mylar balloon would zip by in a flash if stationary as alleged. By the time the WSO’s iPhone came out of his pocket the balloon would have been 2 miles behind them. I believe there is no way those photos were taken without multiple passes, the flight crew eliminating balloons Mylar, weather or otherwise. Unable to get a positive ID hence submitting a report which I am sure is not a whole lot of fun in and of itself.

I regularly fly over built up areas and over my career have seen balloons only a hand full of times, they are so small I doubt they would show up in an iPhone photo at anything more than a hundred feet away.

Also looks like these lads were in the middle of nowhere the likelihood of seeing this many balloons over the ocean at 30,000’ I think would be highly unlikely.

Like people have said these folks are only human but I am pretty sure they are not fools. Something is going on in these military training areas making the US Navy look rather helpless...pretty big deal in my books.

a reply to: Slyder12
So are you really trying to say you don't see the similarity in the object on the right, compared to the object on the left, in the image below? If that's what you're trying to say, then I have an addition to add to my "not credible" list, besides George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Approval through both George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell?

Not impressed. To me, they've both lost credibility a while back.

It does look an awful like the Batman balloon:

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The objects in those photos look the same....what i am trying to say is that if the flight crew on the hornet zipped past a batman mylar balloon there is no way they would have known what it was let alone get an iphone shot of it without passing it multiple times to get the photo along with a positive i.d. As far as i am aware we don't have their report so can only speculate on the photo, it very well may state "batman mylar balloon" in the report.

Again if these are indeed stationary objects that flight crew would have been able to orbit them taking all the photos and figuring out what indeed they actually were or weren't.

I feel all 3 photos are significant because US Navy flight crews felt they needed to document them.

I am not saying they are little green guys or little red guys, that may be a plain jane batman balloon and that flight crew knows it and documented it as a hazard and hey not all objects in our training areas are uap's, but not all uap's are balloons.

a reply to: Slyder12
OK, thanks for clarifying.

By the way pilots are human too.

In the TV show "unidentified" the pilot either didn't know or pretended not to know a slow moving object recorded on video, but you don't have to take his word or anybody else's word for it. If you remember your high school trig, you can do the calculations yourself, to bring your trust and confidence in pilot statements down some notches when you prove to yourself they can be wrong. This thing is not going 2/3 the speed of sound like they say, could just be a balloon or bird or other slow moving object, which you can prove to yourself:

"Go Fast" UFO Video Explained?

That is like me taking a picture of a hot wheels car, on blacktop concrete zoomed in, then taking a picture of the actual car it's supposed to model on the same black top and saying.. "same thing"

1. These objects are nowhere near the same size. A mylar balloon would be a faint spec if anything at that distance and speed. Even this Batman mylar balloon.

2. ... And you keep dodging this question... Repeatedly.. the pilots circled this thing, flew all around it, multiple aircraft saw it... Not just 1. They tried to signal jam it. This object stayed in flight for HOURS not moving AT ALL.. when they say it was stationary they mean... The exact gps coordinate.. not moving a foot in elevation, north, east, south, west, NOTHING.. as if it did not exist in the time/space surrounding it.. completely still.. while high winds were blowing...

A balloon can't do that.

Just as a hot wheels car can't have a key put in it's ignition and be driven off into the sunset.

These objects.. appeared.. on the same day... All at once.. in the same area.. in the regular flight path of our military aircraft.

And they stayed there... And it freaked out the pilots, admiral and others SO MUCH.. that they reported these specific objects your seeing in question.. to the pentagon... And in turn.. to the senate intelligence committee.

The committee was told.. that these specific objects you're seeing right here in these pictures, displayed characteristics that cannot be explained by ANY technology we currently have available...

Including mylar batman birthday balloons

a reply to: mirageman

what do you suppose the third pic is? Ball lightening in formation, right?

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
That is like me taking a picture of a hot wheels car, on blacktop concrete zoomed in, then taking a picture of the actual car it's supposed to model on the same black top and saying.. "same thing"

1. These objects are nowhere near the same size. A mylar balloon would be a faint spec if anything at that distance and speed. Even this Batman mylar balloon.

Proof?

2. ... And you keep dodging this question... Repeatedly.. the pilots circled this thing, flew all around it, multiple aircraft saw it... Not just 1. They tried to signal jam it. This object stayed in flight for HOURS not moving AT ALL.. when they say it was stationary they mean... The exact gps coordinate.. not moving a foot in elevation, north, east, south, west, NOTHING.. as if it did not exist in the time/space surrounding it.. completely still.. while high winds were blowing...

Proof?

I can prove both David Fravor and Chad Underwood falsely claim that the FLIR video shows acceleration at the end which defies the laws of physics. Why would I take anything any pilot says at face value? I want to see evidence and when I do see the evidence I find out those two pilots are either incompetent at analyzing the FLIR video, or lying, I don't know which. If they are lying I would suspect it's because someone gave them the "national security speech" and asked them if they would do their patriotic duty to help improve our national security by helping the intelligence community with its goals.

But if you want to believe whatever pilots tell you, be my guest, I'm just saying you may be taken for a ride by people that are either honestly misperceiving things or else blatantly lying in pursuit of some national security goal, like they are doing with the FLIR video.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Approval through both George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell?

Not impressed. To me, they've both lost credibility a while back.

It does look an awful like the Batman balloon:

You are not getting it, are you? Do I really have to remind you that balloons do not remain stationary in high winds thousands of feet high up in the atmosphere?
Stop pretending that you know better than air force pilots. It's highly unconvincing.

Why so defensive? No where did I claim I know more than airforce pilots. I'm simply stating the visual evidence shows the same characteristics as the Batman balloon.
The top of the craft sweeps upward into 2 points, so does Batman. The craft has 4 points on each side, so does Batman. The craft has 4 arcs connecting those points, so does Batman. The object reflects light, so does Batman. You can even make out a faint outline of Batman. Amazing coincidence wouldn't you say?
I foolishly started drawing comparison lines when you don't need anything when it's this obvious. You actually need to purposely ignore and forgo the visual part to make it manufactured elsewhere:


It's not up to me or anyone to prove what it's not. It's up to you and others to prove what it is.

People want to believe sooooo badly that they throw out logic and common sense. It's sad really.