Merged Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program UFO'S

[skyeagle409]

You're just a source of entertainment now.

7 inch diameter circles?

7 inches, equally spaced and radioactive.

 

[John Jones]

Thank you! And, it is time to get this back on track.

It is clear the objects the Navy pilots encountered were not balloons nor aircraft and the objects exhibited extreme maneuvers far beyond anything known to mankind, which simply means that if the objects that exhibited such advanced maneuvers are not those of mankind, then they came from somewhere else.

It does not follow that they had to be extraterrestrials. Your arguments haven't gotten any more sophisticated in 20+ years.

 

[BStrong]

53470, E-6.

I served 4 years (1967-71) and got out and went to work for the U.S. Navy as a civil servant where I worked on submarines in California for 18 months whereas, I received my appointment as an Air Reserve Technician (ART) at Travis AFB. I was not only an airframe technician, but I also flew as a DCC assistant (1983-84) on the C-5A transport as well. My aircraft, on one mission in the Pacific, was involved in flying recovery gear from Subic Bay, Philippines to Yokota AB, Japan in support for the recovery of Korean Flt 007, which was shot down by the Soviets. We were flying a typical 'Round Robin' mission in the Pacific and were at Clark airbase, Philippines for crew rest when we got word to fly down to Subic Bay.

As an Air Reserve technician (ART) at Travis, my civilian and military positions were combined and after my retirements, I became employed with defense contractors at Travis AFB, and at the Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD) where I was involved in the overhauling and modifying of the Army's helicopters and went into permanent retirement two months after bin Laden was killed.

I find it interesting that Travis AFB ( Fairfield-Suisun Army Air Base) is mentioned on multiple occasions in Project Blue Book.

So what does the link to the article about the Tuskegee Airman have to do with you and what does it have to do with UFO's?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

7 inches, equally spaced and radioactive.

No. You are repeating your debunked lies again.

PC Brian Cresswell : (Inspected the rabbit scrapings) "There were three marks in the area which did not follow a set pattern. The impression made by these marks were of no depth and could have been made by an animal.”
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-f...ecret-files-4/

"Forester Vince Thurkettle – who lived in the forest at the time of the incident – also visited the landing site about six weeks later after hearing rumours about a UFO landing. He too was left unimpressed by what he saw. Thurkettle said the three depressions found by the USAF airmen in the clearing resembled holes produced by burrowing animals."
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-f...ecret-files-4/

"As for the radiation detected at the “landing site” three independent scientific experts, including the makers of the Geiger counter, have since stated there was nothing unusual in the levels recorded by Halt’s team in the forest. They were simply background levels that would be expected in a pine forest."

Make us laugh. Tell us what the comparative background radiation in the forest was? You haven't got a clue, do you?

 

[GT/CS]

I think we're seeing a perfect example of pig wrestling.

 

[Darat]

How come the aliens have changed their approach these days? They have to have done so since we simply don’t have all the high quality photo and video captures we would have today if they were still behaving like they did just 20 years ago.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Thank you! And, it is time to get this back on track.

It is clear the objects the Navy pilots encountered were not balloons nor aircraft and the objects exhibited extreme maneuvers far beyond anything known to mankind, which simply means that if the objects that exhibited such advanced maneuvers are not those of mankind, then they came from somewhere else.

By "encountered" do you mean anything more than "made visual contact with but failed to close with"? I mean, in what (evidenced) ways is this different from cases where pilots mistake a celestial object for an aircraft?

And when you talk about "the objects" extreme manoeuvres, are you now talking about the Aegis contact instead and just assuming that phenomenon, whatever it was, was the same thing as the visual contact?

 

[smartcooky]

I think we're seeing a perfect example of pig wrestling.

I think its more than that... its a combination of pig wrestling and pigeon chess.

IMO skyeagle409 has no idea of the meaning of evidence when it comes to Flying Saucers.

► Old and repeatedly debunked newspaper clippings are not evidence
► Unidentified things in the sky are not evidence
► Interviews taken 20+ years after the fact when the witnesses were pre-teens are not evidence
► Links to Flying Saucer nutjob websites are not evidence
► His bare, unsupported assertions are not evidence

 

[skyeagle409]

How come the aliens have changed their approach these days? They have to have done so since we simply don’t have all the high quality photo and video captures we would have today if they were still behaving like they did just 20 years ago.

In regard to the Navy's UFO encounter, this image is clear enough to see that the craft is not a balloon nor an airplane and notice the glow around the craft.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/asse...se-unidentified-flying-object-exlarge-169.jpg


The maneuvers described by one of the pilots excludes mankind as the owner of those objects by the fact we have no such vehicles capable of such extreme maneuvers and that is one reason why the USAF concluded that the objects in question are not of this earth.

 

[John Jones]

In regard to the Navy's UFO encounter, this image is clear enough to see that the craft is not a balloon nor an airplane and notice the glow around the craft.

[qimg]http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/171219092059-ufo-department-of-defense-unidentified-flying-object-exlarge-169.jpg[/qimg]


The maneuvers described by one of the pilots excludes mankind as the owner of those objects by the fact we have no such vehicles capable of such extreme maneuvers and that is one reason why the USAF concluded that the objects in question are not of this earth.

Aubrey, is this related to the original claim of UFOs in this thread?

For the last time, there is no one in the USAF who has the qualifications to conclude that the UFOs are not of this Earth.

You gave me your best FOIA documents you had more than 20 years ago. Nobody was able to conclude that you had proved the ET hypothesis.

 

[skyeagle409]

IMO skyeagle409 has no idea of the meaning of evidence when it comes to Flying Saucers.

Wrong!!

► Old and repeatedly debunked newspaper clippings are not evidence

Wrong again because you can obtain copies of the news articles including articles where the Air Force ordered its pilots to shoot down flying saucers, even documents and letters where balloon scientist reported tracking flying saucers and in one case, as the objects hovered 200 miles above the earth and that was years before mankind sent the first spacecraft into orbit.

http://3s9h7h3y0i6u2n9j4h5vgkf1-wpe...p-content/uploads/2012/07/life752-225x300.jpg

► Unidentified things in the sky are not evidence

In many cases, they are, such as radar/visual encounters and optical and other data our deep space surveillance assets have proven.

► Interviews taken 20+ years after the fact when the witnesses were pre-teens are not evidence

You need to understand that it doesn't make any difference when the reports were made or who made them just as long as the reports are accurate.

► Links to Flying Saucer nutjob websites are not evidence

In my case, it does because much of what I post can be obtained under the FOIA from the National Archives and other government sources and thanks to the FOIA, the U.S. Army revealed its Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit (IPU).

Speaking of 'nutjobs' let's remember that UFO skeptics allowed themselves to be duped by the Air Force over its 47-year weather balloon story, which believers knew was false because it wouldn't have taken a large group of military personnel to recover a single weather balloon after posting roadblocks. HINT!

How did UFO skeptics feel when the Air Force trashed its Roswell weather balloon story in 1994? In that regard, that was strike one. Strike two came when UFO skeptics allowed themselves to be duped by the Air Force again when it managed to convinced them that its replacement for its weather balloon story was a Project Mogul balloon flight #4 that never was, and that according to Project Mogul balloon records. And, strike three came when the Air Force duped UFO skeptics in 1997 after the Air Force claimed that alien bodies people saw in 1947, were test dummies from 'Operation High Dive' which didn't begin operations until the 1950's, which told me that UFO skeptics are not in the habit of doing homework.

The Air Force depends upon ignorance to get its false claims accepted by closed-minded UFO skeptics who are not in the habit of doing homework or doing it properly when they do.

► His bare, unsupported assertions are not evidence

In my case, they are because I do my homework and it is very clear that you don't.

.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

 

[John Jones]

IMO skyeagle409 has no idea of the meaning of evidence when it comes to Flying Saucers.

[...]
.

He's right, Aubrey. You don't have a clue. I've been watching you for 20 plus years.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

In regard to the Navy's UFO encounter, this image is clear enough to see that the craft is not a balloon nor an airplane and notice the glow around the craft.

That isn't the video taken by Commander David Fravor. That image is from the the video created for the To the Stars Academy launch in October 2016.

You have the wrong video.

The original UFO video that appeared on You Tube in 2007 is here.
https://www.metabunk.org/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage.t9190/

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I do my homework and it is very clear that you don't. .

You have the wrong video.

 

[skyeagle409]

For the last time, there is no one in the USAF who has the qualifications to conclude that the UFOs are not of this Earth.

I disagree. Look how much as been revealed over the past 20 years from around the world in regard to UFOs. Take a look at the COMETA report.

What Scientist Have Observed, Documented, And Have Stated

A strange object, seen by everyone present, had crossed the path of the balloon. The instrument man, confused, had followed it. Swiftly, one of the scientists grabbed the theodolite and began tracking the missile.

An accurate plot of the object's course was recorded. Analyzing this data later, I can state definitely that:

1. The object, viewed in cross section, was elliptical in shape.

2. It was about 105 feet in diameter.

3. It was flying at an altitude of approximately 56 miles. (This was determined by a ballistics expert. An object at a lower altitude on this particular bright day could not have fitted the data taken. For security reasons, I cannot go deeper into this method of calculating altitude.)

4. Its speed was about 5 miles per second.

5. At the end of its trajectory, it swerved abruptly upward, altering its angle of elevation by 5 degrees -- corresponding to an increase in altitude of about 25 miles -- in a period of 10 seconds. Rough calculation indicates that a force of more that 20 G's (20 times the pull of gravity) would be required to produce this elevation in this time.

6. The object was visible for 60 seconds.

7. It disappeared at an elevation of 29 degrees.

http://www.nicap.org/true-mc.htm


MANEUVERED MOTION AND "INTELLIGENT CONTROL

Following the nearly year-long 1952 UFO sighting wave in which there were repeated instances of jet interceptors chasing after UFOs that also showed on radar, the Central Intelligence Agency convened the so-called Robertson Panel to evaluate the data. Among the presentations made to the scientific panel was one by Dewey J. Fournet (USAF, Ret.) who had worked with scientific analysts conducting a rigorous motion analysis study of hardcore unexplained cases.

Edward J. Ruppelt, former Chief of the Air Force Project Blue Book investigation, later reported that the study was "very hot and very controversial...[it] was hot because it wasn't official and the reason it wasn't official was because it was so hot. It concluded that UFOs were interplanetary spaceships."
Air Force analysts had reached this conclusion before. Project Sign in 1948 had issued a Top Secret Estimate of the Situation drawing the same conclusion. (Hall, 1964, p. 110) But both times outside scientific consultants, on the basis of what were arguably superficial and excessively skeptical reviews, disputed the conclusion. (Hall, 1988, pp. 155-163)

Many of these jet interception cases included a sort of "cat-and-mouse" behavior on the part of the UFOs, pulling away from the pursuing jets and then slowing down until they caught up again. This behavior has been repeated throughout the history of UFOs, and is one of the many indicators of intelligence behind the phenomenon. Case after case can be cited of UFOs apparently playing interactive games with (a) military aircraft
http://www.nicap.org/eth/motionstudy_ruppelt_orig.htm

.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

In regard to the Navy's UFO encounter, this image is clear enough to see that the craft is not a balloon nor an airplane and notice the glow around the craft.





[qimg]http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/171219092059-ufo-department-of-defense-unidentified-flying-object-exlarge-169.jpg[/qimg]








The maneuvers described by one of the pilots excludes mankind as the owner of those objects by the fact we have no such vehicles capable of such extreme maneuvers and that is one reason why the USAF concluded that the objects in question are not of this earth.

If only you could show that the image was genuinely from a Navy UFO encounter, that the object in the centre of that image was the thing being described in the accompanying audio or that the USAF had expressed any opinion on the object in that video then you might have a point. But it seems you can't establish any of those things as fact. It doesn't appear that any of them are facts.

 

[Agatha]

Please can participants remember that hotlinking is not permitted. That means that you must not wrap images in

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Hans]

[qimg]https://i.imgflip.com/224x1s.jpg[/qimg]

Darn I knew that had to be it!

 

[sackett]

Well, Skyeagle, if aliens really are flying around, what next? What are you going to do about it? Right now, you're just posting on an obscure internet forum (all fora are obscure, come to that). Why aren't you grabbing generals and politicians by the lapels and demanding action? action! ACTION!!!!

What kind of action? Hell, I don't know. You're the ufoologist, you tell me.