UFO videos

Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by humanoidlord, Feb 26, 2018.

  1. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Unapologetic Rationalist & Grand Regent of Taraka

    Messages:
    665
    It only sounds silly because we don't have technology that can do that. But the radar operator Trevor described exactly that kind of behavior: he said that the domed circular object that he saw in the gun camera footage didn't fly; it repeatedly leapt from one position to the next so quickly that it vanished between frames of the video and reappeared in a new spot, seemingly instantaneously.

    So like I said, it seems that Hannah McRoberts caught a photo of an object that matches that description, doing exactly what the object did in the gun camera footage that Trevor saw.
     
  2. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Honorable

    Messages:
    286
    A valuable observation. I did a lots of photography with film cameras. They were very fiddly and occupied your attention for at least 10-20sec before the shot. Additionally once you looked through viewfinder it was exactly the same as putting blinkers on, for another 10-20sec. So that UFO could had been sitting still for good 10-15sec without getting notticed, while she was distracted by arranging otherwise very nice shot.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Honorable

    Messages:
    286
    I've just started a new thread on Karl Feindt's book.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    1,356
    Nope. I listened to the Fighter Pilot podcast Jan 2 2019 with Commander Fravor. He only describes what he saw as a "little white object" or "tic-tac".

    At the 45:00 mark he speaks about the GIMBAL video taken off the east coast during a different training exercise.

    From TTSA GIMBAL VIDEO — To The Stars Academy
    "The date, location, and other information have been removed by the originating authority as part of the release approval process."

    So maybe Fravor made a harmless slip. He mentioned that the radar operators aboard the Princeton were already acquainted with the breath mint at the time of his encounter and that a warning about them had been posted for the east coast area prior to that GIMBAL incident because of a near collision between an F/A-18 and whatever that was. No way to know which one came first. His description of what the pilot saw in that incident described it as a "ball with a cube inside" and a "square with an aura."

    I never heard anything about a saucer with a dome.

    As Dejan mentioned, the thing could have floated in and out quietly without notice. It wasn't discovered until the film was developed.

    This is what I meant about connecting things that maybe shouldn't be.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  5. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    4,106
    you want proof? heres some proof:
    bruce maccabe (who i must say thought some hoaxes were the real deal) agrees with me: The Nightline UFO Video: No Longer a Question Mark
    another identical case:
    [​IMG]
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  6. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    4,106
    know gyr falcon:

     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    4,106
    or it was standing still but invisible to the human eye?
     
  8. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    1,356
    Could be but we have no way of knowing. Whatever it was the lady with the camera didn't notice it at the time. Whatever it was it looks cool and isn't immediately explainable.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Unapologetic Rationalist & Grand Regent of Taraka

    Messages:
    665
    You're getting two different accounts of two different events mixed up, and it seems that you're only aware of one of them. I'm not talking about the Fravor/Slaight incident with the Tic-Tac ufo. The second radar operator who came forward, going by the name of Trevor (not Fravor), described a domed disc-like object that he saw in the optical gun camera footage from an entirely different intercept mission (also not Fravor or the Tic-Tac ufo) during the roughly 2-week period of the various USS Nimitz incidents. Trevor described this domed disc-like object changing location so fast that it was invisible on the video as it changed position, which stunned everyone in the control room who watched the footage.

    So if there's a connection between that domed disc-like object, and the domed disc-like object in the Hannah McRoberts photo, it would handily explain this:

    The only person who's done that here is you: the Tic-Tac encounter and the subsequently taken long-range FLIR footage that we've seen, are a different incident than the encounter with the domed disc-like object that Trevor described. Here's Trevor describing the domed disc-like UFO that he saw in the video footage from a separate intercept mission:



    That photo looks nothing like the Maui video. But Maccabee did study the camera system in that video and he concluded that the system could've failed to detect a plane wing:

    "One aspect of the imagery seemed to directly contradict the airplane hypothesis: at one time a star image appears to pass "through" the space between the bright central lights and the upper "wing" light. This had been pointed out to me by LaMonica as evidence against the aircraft hypothesis because one would expect the star to be momentarily blocked by a solid wing. When I first saw the video I wondered whether or not that could be explained as an artifact of the electronics. Subsequently I learned from the telescope operators that the nature of the image forming and capturing electronics (RCA ISIT microchannel plate and image scan device -- like a vidicon -- plus a scan converter to make an ordinary VHS video) could have failed to record a brief blockage of the starlight, that should have resulted in a momentary "turning off" of the star image, because of time delay (integration time) in the processing devices."

    So I agree with his final assessment - since it could've been a plane, it's not interesting:

    "A UFO is as a UFO does. If a UFO does nothing that an IFO (identified flying object) could not do, then there is no reason to call it a UFO. In this case it appears that an airplane would be consistent with the observational evidence. Although I can not prove there was an airplane flying over the telescope, there is no reason to believe that an airplane could not have done so. Since there is no evidence in the video which conclusively contradicts the airplane hypothesis there is no good reason to claim that the lights were something else."
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    1,356
    OK. I now see that Trevor was a radar/sensor operator on Nimitz during the tic-tac video. I listened to this interview with him


    In the Fighter Pilot podcast Fravor referred to what he witnessed as a 'tic-tac' or 'little white object.' I am aware that he referenced a completely different incident off the east coast - the GIMBAL video, near miss, advance warnings etc. The pilots in the east coast incident are where he said the description of the object(s) came from - 'ball with a cube inside' and 'square with an aura.'

    So here we have a fighter pilot with impeccable credentials referencing multiple incidents describing what sounds to me like about the same thing.

    On the link I provided with the Trevor interview at about the 15:50 mark he said he saw a 'domed object with a flat bottom' and went on to describe it as a 'classic flying saucer.' And I see that could be a match for the McRoberts photo, but wouldn't necessarily make that leap myself. If all the witnesses were saying the same thing then maybe.

    Several problems with all this. The easiest one to address to Jeremy Corbell pounding the drama drum a little too hard. His interviewing technique is so front loaded with innuendo he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near witnesses that might have any credibility.

    Going strictly by what Fravor said it was the Princeton that vectored him to the contact and her operators told him that the visitor had been around a while. Of course the Nimitz had to have been fully dialed into all this. Nothing Trevor said about the radar contact was out of sync with what Fravor said.

    But Trevor IS saying that the very clear videos he was allowed to see don't line up with what has been released publicly or with how Fravor described the object - either in his own encounter or the ones he referred to off the east coast. Trevor is disputing the account of our experienced pilot with impeccable credentials. He said the videos had all been downloaded instantly and didn't mentioned any mag tape cartridges locked in any safe. Smacks of cover up and conspiracy, doesn't it. So who are we supposed to believe?
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  11. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    1,356
    I know that the videos released by TTSA have been sanitized for public consumption and that isn't overly surprising. Makes sense to protect certain capabilities. Creepy Green Light has said as much from his personal experience - that the equipment has much greater resolution than what we have seen. You could argue that Trevor is interpreting something outside his professional experience and that the pilots and their EWOs would be the ones to listen to because interpreting that data is well within theirs.

    2004 USS NIMITZ PILOT WRITTEN REPORT — To The Stars Academy

    upload_2019-2-11_9-47-25.png

    Source and six other 'OK' experts are agreeing with the written description. This doesn't jive with the McRoberts photo.

    So is Trevor a one off? Looking for attention and getting it or speaking the absolute truth? This is the sort of thing that has Lt. Columbo turning around at the last minute saying "oh, there's just one more thing...."
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    1,356
    Just found this:
    Date: 06-14-2018
    Title: Ret. SR. Chief Petty Officer Kevin Day
    Phenomenon Radio | KGRA-dB Archives

    Apparently the radar operator operator. I'll see what he has to say and hope that Linda doesn't start talking about 'energies' unless we're getting into specifics about radar
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Unapologetic Rationalist & Grand Regent of Taraka

    Messages:
    665
    This is a complex case because there was a lot anomalous activity around the Nimitz CSG over the course of many days, possibly weeks. Let’s leave the East Coast stuff out of it because there’s plenty to parse here without dragging that into it.

    For the sake of argument let’s take Trevor at his word – it’s annoying that he won’t release his last name but he sounds sincere to my ear and it gets annoying to constantly acknowledge the contingent basis of essentially all knowledge but especially uncorroborated eyewitness testimony.

    Cmdrs. Fravor and Slaight didn’t take any footage of what they experienced with the Tic-Tac: Fravor has stated this so we can assume that it’s a fact. That means that Trevor couldn’t be talking about the Fravor/Slaight intercept mission when he’s talking about the footage he saw.

    The clip that we have seen was taken by a subsequent intercept mission later that same day by different pilots. That brief clip basically tells us nothing – it’s far too blurry (I tend to assume that it’s been intentionally de-rezzed before it was released, but in any case it’s not clear enough or interesting enough to be significant). In fact it’s so blurry that we can’t tell if that object is shaped like a Tic-Tac or a domed saucer like Trevor described, or even if it's just something ordinary like a jet.

    But we do know from both radar operators that there was a fleet or fleets of AAVs in the area at the time. We have no reason to assume that all of those objects had the same shape.

    So the footage that Trevor saw, which he believes was taken the same day as the Fravor/Slaight intercept mission, could be from that subsequent mission, and it could be of an entirely different object (I think it’s fairly safe to say that it must be a different object, because Trevor said that the footage was quite clear and it didn’t have a Tic-Tac shape). The footage that he saw could’ve also been from an entirely different intercept mission that same day – we don’t know how many intercept attempts were made, we only know for sure about two missions that day but there may have been more.

    Trevor noted that when he saw an anomalous target (or targets) on his radar screen, that it/they “hopped around” – it/they weren’t flying around like a plane. That’s why he couldn’t tag it/them.

    Putting this all together, it seems that we’re talking about two completely different objects involved in at least two but possibly three or more intercept missions that day. Fravor/Slaight caught no footage, so we’ll never see what they saw. The subsequent mission that Fravor and Slaight described did catch video of something, but we don’t know if it was the Tic-Tac or a different type of craft.

    If Trevor is telling the truth then there were at least two different types of objects in the sky that day: the Tic-Tac AAV and a smooth, domed disc-like object. That disc-like object was caught on clear video footage, first mimicking the maneuvers of the interceptor jet taking the footage, and then finally leaping vertically so quickly that it vanished from at least two consecutive frames of video – that’s the kind of dramatic acceleration, or “hopping” maneuver that he’d seen on the radar scope earlier that day when he was on duty.

    That’s why I think it’s reasonable to consider that the object in the Hannah McRoberts photo could’ve done the same thing. Both objects fit the same basic description, and both the radar system and the video footage that Trevor saw showed “hopping” rather than “flying” kind of performance.

    I should also probably mention that if these devices employ a gravitational field propulsion system, that would handily explain how these craft can perform those kinds of maneuvers without fragmenting into pieces: there are no g-forces with a gravitational field propulsion system. That kind of field propulsion exerts no forces on the craft – you could go from a dead stop to any speed, in an arbitrarily short time interval, with no stress on the craft or anything inside of it, according to the theoretical physics of gravitational field propulsion. In fact that’s the only known theoretical principle that allows any kind of reactionless propulsion, so it’s our only viable model for explaining AAV reports in general, which almost never involve any kind of rocket or jet thruster or aerodynamic lift.

    In any case, for the reasons I’ve stated above, I don’t see any conflict between the Fravor/Slaight testimony, and Trevor’s testimony. We know there’s no footage of the Fravor/Slaight intercept mission, so Trevor couldn’t be disputing it. And we don’t know if the footage that we have seen, which was taken by a separate mission and different pilots, involved a Tic-Tac AAV or the disc-like AAV that Trevor described, or even something mundane. I think it’s perfectly reasonable given the results of the Fravor/Slaight mission and the fleets of AAVs active in the area at the time, that there may have been more than the two intercept attempts that we know about for sure. Trevor said that the footage he saw was different than the clip that has been released, so if he’s right then there were at least three intercept missions that day and two of them caught video footage, and Trevor is the only one we’ve heard from who saw the up-close footage of a smooth, domed, disc-like object that can change positions so quickly that it can’t be captured visually with normal video frame rates. It is interesting though that Fravor and Slaight described the same kind of dramatic acceleration at the close of their Tic-Tac encounter earlier that day.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
  14. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    4,106
    but it features a similar problem: the camera capturing only the plane's lights, giving it an invisible appearence
    wich is exactly my point! :facepalm2:
     
  15. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    4,106
    neither, unless further evidence showing that either of them is right, surfaces wich i find higly doubtfull at this time
     
  16. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    1,356
    Date: 06-14-2018
    Title: Ret. SR. Chief Petty Officer Kevin Day
    Phenomenon Radio | KGRA-dB Archives

    Just finished this although I didn't have the time to listen to it all at once so I probably missed a few details. I'm initially commenting on Day's statements. They generally agree with the written report and like any story the details will change a little with each person repeating it, especially after many years have passed.

    Day was aboard Princeton which has superior radar/sensor capability compared to the rest of the ships in its group. He was the man directly tasked with air defense for the carrier group. It was his responsibility to see what was happening by collating the data received from his own ship, plus the two destroyers plus the carrier and direct the combat air patrol toward anything that needed attention. At any given moment a carrier will have a number of aircraft aloft including a combat air patrol (CAP) to protect the ship. They don't wait to become aware of something and then launch planes.

    There had to have been at least one attack sub involved in this group and I wonder what their crew members might say abut all this. Haven't heard any mention of that from anyone. If an object in the air merits the attention of the CAP you would think someone is also paying close attention to what's in the water.

    A multitude of objects remained at 28000 feet cruising slowly southward at 100 knots about 40 miles away. Modern commercial airliner altitudes at airshow biplane speeds. The entire task force had seen them for several days and had no explanation for them. Up to a hundred objects cycling north to south predictably over several days. Not what we normally hear about with UFO reports.

    Day seems to have been the trigger to have these unusual but apparently harmless contacts investigated. Since so many planes were due to be involved in an exercise it was common sense to at least send the planes who had the duty to investigate contacts to have a look, hence Fravor. One thing - Fravor's account begins with seeing an object in the water. Days account begins with Fravor screaming into the radio that he had been engaged and then seeing the thing plunge into the water.

    Up to eight additional intercepts took place. Two men in each plane, two planes in each intercept. Day said they just wanted to be left alone to do whatever they were doing and when approached would drop 28K feet to the water in a fraction of a second and then pop back up and go back to what they were doing. A predictable response - interesting.
    Day mentioned that Princeton had the most advanced sensor array but operators aboard other vessels -the DDGs I think - saw them leave the atmosphere and return. He can only attest to what he witnessed and that was the 28K yo-yo.

    Day actually went on deck and eyeballed them through powerful binoculars. He said it was white light, like he was looking at a light bulb. He also said that in discussing it with the ship's captain they ran through a number of prosaic possibilities and UFOs were certainly on the list but Day felt he was looking at a benign unmanned drone of some kind, wherever it came from.

    He is aware of Trevor and remarked that he was the only one talking about a traditional 'flying saucer'. They are both saying that additional data exists and that it was confiscated. That's a no-brainer. Damned sure there are some really interesting things locked away.

    I found Day to be perfectly credible - except for a passing reference about missing time and some suggestion of dark clandestine activity. Once the hard data had been taken from the aircraft and comm logs (Day did discuss what was removed) and with it the ability to substantiate any claims it sounded to me like the Navy was just fine with letting people talk, and to a large degree that talk never really went anywhere.

    Rather than haggling over what form of propulsion they might employ, whether we've seen them in other photos or any of that consider this:

    If I had the resources of the Unites States and wanted to develop a reconnaissance - surveillance capability for the 21st century what would it look like? In the past we used a wide variety of high altitude balloons and aircraft that possessed performance capabilities well beyond anything else being flown at the time. How many UFO reports did those generate? And wasn't that generally OK with the military? Good camouflage.

    Imagine deploying a suite of drones that could loiter for long periods of time collecting intelligence, probably far more than just visual observation, and when approached can react in a way that some of the most sophisticated aircraft in the world can't contend with? And then go back to what it was doing. That would be handy.

    If I had a fleet of these drones and wanted to test them I'd want a real world test close to home. A carrier group off the west coast in a training exercise that required them to be unarmed would be a good place to start. The object Fravor encountered knew where his CAP station was - also very interesting.

    Day feels that Fravor is "being controlled". I don't know what to make of that but feel we have been given a tiny little taste and are peering at this whole incident through a cocktail straw. Why are interviews with these radar operators not being added to what TTSA has already published? Why do we have to go to public podcasts to hear what they have to say? Something just doesn't seem right about the whole thing: we are seeing what they want us to see and we are hearing what they want us to hear. In this case years after the incident took place. The suggestion of alien craft all the hububbery that inevitably ensues would definitely work to he advantage of protecting an intelligence asset, as it has in the past.

    I got no dog in this fight. No theories about how they work or where they came from or if we've seen certain ones before. I'd love to see real proof of extraterrestrial visitation - been waiting for something along those lines my entire life ..... and still am.

    What I'd love to see even more is that proof being presented in a way that doesn't involve Bigelow & Company, Knapp, Corbell and TTSA in general. I can't help but suspect its a version of Moore & Doty - 'let them in on a little secret and tell them what they most want to hear'.

    I have plenty of time and we'll see what else they come up with.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Creepy Green Light

    Creepy Green Light Don't mistake lack of talent for genius

    Messages:
    636
    I see at one point it says that the F/A-18 pilots were flying between 10-20,000 feet. Do we know what altitude they were at when they described the patch of ocean that was "disturbed" and seeing the 30-40 ft tic-tac object? Were they still at 10-20,000 ft? If it's in the report -forgive me as I was quickly glancing over it.
     
  18. Creepy Green Light

    Creepy Green Light Don't mistake lack of talent for genius

    Messages:
    636
    I wish I could have seen what the pilots saw - that way I wouldn't have to speculate on how it might have looked at. Again, just with my own experience in the Navy - I have a hard time trying to imagine seeing detail on an object that is 30-40 ft in length at the given altitude. Here is what I do know;

    The first two pictures are stills from someone standing right next to me (I'm sitting behind the pilot and on the actual video you could hear my camera snapping away). So I know that our altitude was at 300 ft. BTW - 300 ft over the open ocean makes it look like you are traveling on a boat. It looks like the wing tips are going to dip into the ocean when we turn and to see the horizon from the flight station you have to bend down & look up. But anyway, the boat in the first two pictures is at least - minimum 100 ft.

    So on the third picture (same mission - same altitude) you can see how much larger this boat is. It appears that it's a Group 3 tanker which are usually 1000 to 1300 ft in length. So in my mind, I'm trying to picture something hovering over the ocean that is 1/4 - 1/3 the size of the boat in the first two pics - but from an altitude of 10-20,000 ft. Up at say around 5000 ft it would be hard to see the first boat over open ocean. Again, trying to picture a 30 ft personal fishing boat, like a Grady White and us being up at 10,000 ft - and me being able to report the type of craft, its features, etc. - I'm thinking that that is impossible. When I hear detailed visual reports of an object 30-40 ft in length over the open ocean - I picture the search aircraft flying at 100-300 ft to give that kind of detail - and maybe they were down that low, that's why I originally asked. Again, this is just from my own personal experience.

    In the first picture you can see the back of the pilots head & his headrest. Second pic you can just see the headrest.

    IMG-2416.JPG IMG-2415.jpg group 3 tanker.jpg
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  19. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    1,356
    Yup.

    2004 USS NIMITZ PILOT WRITTEN REPORT — To The Stars Academy

    I have no reason to disbelieve Fravor or Day, butI have no reason to listen to an anonymous source that's talking about things no one else is.

    I'm guessing that Fravor was tapped to be in the spotlight not only because of his direct involvement in the incident but maybe because he was already packaged for public consumption - PBS' Carrier was popular. Whatever the actual count was from Day's interview or the written report there were quite a few other pilots and EWOs who had similar encounters in the air that day, not to mention the number of people aboard ship who saw and heard all sorts or things. That doesn't even get in to the other witnesses from the other incidents referenced.

    You would think that additional credible witness testimony would make a nice addition to the TTSA CoI page. My curiosity hasn't been satisfied just yet and I don't feel the need to weaponize it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Creepy Green Light

    Creepy Green Light Don't mistake lack of talent for genius

    Messages:
    636
    That's where in my brain I think "something doesn't add up" - trying to even visually spot an object in the ocean/hovering over the ocean that is 30-40 ft in length at 10-20,000 ft would be like trying to find a wine cork bottle bobbing around in the sea. It cant happen. Wouldn't happen. Then the idea that they could make out the surface of the object & color, etc. makes it more unbelievable. I was hoping that I was missing a piece that said the F/A 18's dropped down to 100-200 ft to check out the object - then their observations would be believable. But at the altitude they were at - no way.
     

Share This Page