No hypersonic wake, no hypersonic boom. Hell of a spoofer though. Must have been VERY expensive.
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,536
- Reaction score
- 14,786
Another article here. This has the smell of hiding the truth in amongst nonsense. Surely it isn’t the case that someone in SAP underestimated the capabilities of the new radar, or were they testing their limits perhaps of capabilities like radar spoofing.
www.thedrive.com
Multiple F/A-18 Pilots Disclose Recent UFOs Encounters, New Radar Tech Key In Detection
A major upgrade in fighter jet radar tech seems to have been key in detecting and tracking bizarre objects flying in military training airspace.
www.thedrive.com
It is kind of strange you would want to test your new spoofer with AESA, when almost none of the adversary near peer states have rolled it out. What gives?
![ufo_2x[1].png](/data/attachments/150/150350-e7e15230fe72e18d54122142a602c5f1.jpg)
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,536
- Reaction score
- 14,786
Now the Washington Post is having its say. Well I suppose it fills some column inches.
What a steaming pile of bunk. No, "they" don't exist.
Either we are really in some kind of catch-22 twilight zone where command wants to test classified programs in the field, and has literally no leeway to acknowledge the matter, or this is a deliberate mechanism to intimidate/confuse adversary nations.
Another article here. This has the smell of hiding the truth in amongst nonsense. Surely it isn’t the case that someone in SAP underestimated the capabilities of the new radar, or were they testing their limits perhaps of capabilities like radar spoofing.
Multiple F/A-18 Pilots Disclose Recent UFOs Encounters, New Radar Tech Key In Detection
A major upgrade in fighter jet radar tech seems to have been key in detecting and tracking bizarre objects flying in military training airspace.
Or a proton beam spoofer. This was actually tested at Area51.
Mat Parry
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 25 January 2011
- Messages
- 416
- Reaction score
- 27
Isn't there also the possibility that it is adversary nations testing US Navy capabilities. Are China's subs quiet enough to pull off something like this?
http://aviationtrivia.blogspot.com/2011/01/project-palladium-testing-soviet-radars.html?m=1
"US Navy submarine surfaced just offshore of Havana and released a series of balloons, each carrying a radar reflector corresponding to a specific RCS value".
You might speculate that a translucent spherical ballon with a radar reflector inside might look like...a "sphere encasing a cube" (the UFO described in the more recent NYT article i.e. the Roosevelt in 2014).
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/politics/ufo-sightings-navy-pilots.html
Whilst I enjoy the idea that the "tic tac" UFO's are remotely generated plasmoids, Im not aware of any evidence to support a claim that particle beams were tested at Area 51?
Last edited:
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,536
- Reaction score
- 14,786
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,556
- Reaction score
- 7,178
Navy's Advanced Aerospace Tech Boss Claims Key 'UFO' Patent Is Operable
Navy officials claim their radical electromagnetic and superconductor technologies aren't theoretical, they’re already operable in some form.
www.thedrive.com
I understand the scepticism but sometime science step forward through experimental research and a full understanding of the theories behind an embodiment only come after.
Meanwhile that would rest as an invention that need to be protected.
Meanwhile that would rest as an invention that need to be protected.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,536
- Reaction score
- 14,786
The Navy Says Those UFO Videos Are Real
And they were never meant to be released to the public.
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,536
- Reaction score
- 14,786
Follow up article of analysis.
www.popularmechanics.com
What We Know About the Navy’s UFOs
They're unlike any aircraft we've ever seen.
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,536
- Reaction score
- 14,786
It’s interesting that the ships involved didn’t switch to any kind of defensive posture as far as we know, so they clearly didn’t perceive whatever these things were as a threat.
Also there’s this sceptic article but I am not very keen on it as the author asks why aren’t other sources available seemingly not realising such material would be routinely classified. In fact the whole article looks like a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water and just as bad as aliens are here websites.
www.skeptic.com
Also there’s this sceptic article but I am not very keen on it as the author asks why aren’t other sources available seemingly not realising such material would be routinely classified. In fact the whole article looks like a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water and just as bad as aliens are here websites.
The Pentagon’s UFOs: How a Multimedia Entertainment Company Created a UFO News Story
Countless media outlets are proclaiming that the US Defense Department has “disclosed UFOs,” or has “acknowledged” that they exist. How much of that is true? Very little!
www.skeptic.com
Last edited:
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,536
- Reaction score
- 14,786
This is the best link in this recent resurgence as it is source for the above articles.
www.theblackvault.com
Good follow up article from the same site.
www.theblackvault.com
U.S. Navy Confirms Videos Depict ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena’; Not Cleared For Public Release - The Black Vault
By John Greenewald, Jr., The Black Vault -- Originally Published September 10th, 2019 In a series of statements obtained exclusively by The Black Vault, the U.S. Navy confirms three UFO related videos represent what they call “unidentified aerial phenomena” or UAPs. Originally released by the...
www.theblackvault.com
Good follow up article from the same site.
U.S. Navy Investigated Circumstances Behind Leaked UFO Footage - The Black Vault
By John Greenewald, Jr. – The Black Vault – Originally Published September 17, 2019 On December 16, 2017, the New York Times and To the Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA) published two videos which both organizations claimed showed “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” or UAPs. Although reported...
www.theblackvault.com
Last edited:
The UFOs are inventions that need to be protected. For decades, guidance to military personnel has been issued via JANAP, or Joint Army Navy Air Publication. JANAP 146, for example, specifically mentions Unidentified Flying Objects. JANAP would eventually include commercial pilots. All of this was part of CIRVIS, or Communications Instructions for Reporting Vital Intelligence Sightings which included Canada which was a partner with NORAD, like it or not. The goal was the rapid reporting of all unidentified aircraft. This made sense during the Cold War when even false alarms were tolerated so long as real threats, like Russian bombers, were spotted.
It is no surprise the U.S. Navy is involved. There will be no follow-up as far as the Navy or any other service branch. That has been the pattern for decades, namely, statements followed by no substantive action, aside from widening the net regarding who cannot say anything about what they saw.
It is no surprise the U.S. Navy is involved. There will be no follow-up as far as the Navy or any other service branch. That has been the pattern for decades, namely, statements followed by no substantive action, aside from widening the net regarding who cannot say anything about what they saw.
oh , uh ... so there are Republican Senators out there who accuse USN of keeping information from people that should know . These are kind of things one picks up in blogs which people here might not like . Now that they perhaps also want to claim there is a race between China and the US in some whole new aviation field . Personally loved to discover the flame is still burning in these parts .
yes , you can . Like how about calling US Senators fools and worse , now that it's not my defence budget ? Just like everyone would be -before this got official in a way . But then this will also need a translation , maybe ?
aliensporebomb
If it flies, it's probably interesting...
Musing: If it is "ours" what possible benefit would there be to let adversaries know there is apparently "something out there we can't stop or out maneuver"?
What's more, testing "advanced craft" against our own crews?
And if not "ours" - whose? The Navy? Testing Navy craft against itself? Is there a precedent for that? I won't go in the UFO direction.
My thinking, classified at a very high level whatever it is and if it's a projection of some type it's the most convincing ever produced. if it's a physical vehicle, a new paradigm in aviation has been reached.
What's more, testing "advanced craft" against our own crews?
And if not "ours" - whose? The Navy? Testing Navy craft against itself? Is there a precedent for that? I won't go in the UFO direction.
My thinking, classified at a very high level whatever it is and if it's a projection of some type it's the most convincing ever produced. if it's a physical vehicle, a new paradigm in aviation has been reached.
Last edited:
The US Air Force has had this UFO problem since 1947. They control all information about it. For some reason, they hired J. Allen Hynek, an astronomer, to look into this. As time passed, various study projects going by various names came and went. The early consensus was that these craft were Russian. In 1968, the US Air Force funded a study of UFOs to be completed by select persons at the University of Colorado, who concluded that the study of UFOs should not be continued, and based on past reports, no increase in scientific knowledge has occurred. The paperback version, at over 1,000 pages, was released in January 1969. There has been no progress and certainly no disclosure since 1947.
I have every reason to believe these are reconnaissance aircraft that will not be disclosed. And further reason to believe that false and misleading statements have been made concerning their performance. 1966, Michigan. J. Allen Hynek blames a UFO sighting on swamp gas.
I have every reason to believe these are reconnaissance aircraft that will not be disclosed. And further reason to believe that false and misleading statements have been made concerning their performance. 1966, Michigan. J. Allen Hynek blames a UFO sighting on swamp gas.
You're leaving out the whole part where the Air Force worked with the CIA to create project blue book for the sole purpose of covering for sightings of U2 / A12 / SR 71 and presumably something else.
Don't believe it? It's chronicled in this exhaustive CIA report. Case closed.
Don't believe it? It's chronicled in this exhaustive CIA report. Case closed.
That is certainly not the whole story. I have studied this subject for 30 years. The number of sightings for each year, starting with 1947, exceeds the number of all tests of all aircraft mentioned. The history of the SR-71 is well chronicled. It was designed for a certain purpose and to operate in a certain environment. It was not designed to be easy to spot. The CIA was in charge of all secret aircraft development. Their credibility in this matter is low for security reasons.
Let's review project names: Project Saucer, Project Sign, Project Grudge and so on. Many projects, no results. No defense. No answers.
Let's review project names: Project Saucer, Project Sign, Project Grudge and so on. Many projects, no results. No defense. No answers.
greenmartian2017
The Shadow knows what lurks in the hearts of men
- Joined
- 13 May 2008
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 141
The current news cycles relating to the UFO sightings (via radar, etc.) off the southern coast of California during US Naval exercises has a smell of familiarity. Spoofing our radar systems with ECM has been around since the 1950s, with signatures that seem to be tracking at 10,000 miles/hour. Back in the 1950s. These tests are not showing that the UAPs are from Zeta Reticuli; no, these just happen to be stuff we (as in, the US) is developing. It may UAPs for those who don't have "a need to know," that's all. I think that the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff probably know what these are (if they request briefings), including the CNO. You might remember a month or two or three back a number of congresspersons requested the USN to provide them with a classified briefing about the Nimitz stuff. That briefing actually happened. You do notice that none of the congresspersons who had requested that briefing have said we need open hearings subsequently.
There's a reason for that result.
I am now providing you with an article written by a Dr. Leon Davidson (a real PhD, not in psychology, not in the study of sex like "Dr. Ruth," etc.) back in February/March 1959. Its title is:
"ECM + CIA + UFO." (I think the original title was actually "ECM + ZYA =UFO," but to have clarity, Davidson changed the spoofed acronym later on in reprints of the article to make clear that he meant the CIA (and connected IC agencies).)
I suspect that the techniques used in the 1950s are pretty much, procedures-wise, the same as what was probably used during the Nimitz events.
There's a reason for that result.
I am now providing you with an article written by a Dr. Leon Davidson (a real PhD, not in psychology, not in the study of sex like "Dr. Ruth," etc.) back in February/March 1959. Its title is:
"ECM + CIA + UFO." (I think the original title was actually "ECM + ZYA =UFO," but to have clarity, Davidson changed the spoofed acronym later on in reprints of the article to make clear that he meant the CIA (and connected IC agencies).)
I suspect that the techniques used in the 1950s are pretty much, procedures-wise, the same as what was probably used during the Nimitz events.
Just to be clear; "sensors" (including the Mk1 eyeball) can be spoofed and fooled by things both natural and man-made and quite often when one wants to 'see' something where the more advanced senors are telling you to look WILL see something even if nothing is actually there. Even experts can see things and our recording media has always produced 'artifacts' which can be deciving. Having said that it doesn't help at all when you have agencies, (both official and private) who's "job" it is to obscure and bend the reality to fit either a narative or to hide one.
Randy
Randy
Actually JUST because it's Top Secret doesn't automatically mean that the public doesn't have the "need to know" and the two don't always preclude sharing information on important subjects. There's also the issue that nothing remains Top Secret forever, or even 'a secret' since time will tend to expand the number of those who know and no one keeps quite forever. (Even the dead if you want to get technical... and more than bit morbid
) The very number of projects connected to UFO's in fact is more likely to let things out than keep them in since it raised awareness and has offered endless sources of renewal for interest in the subject. Exactly the opposite effect wouldn't you say if they were trying to use it to 'hide' something?Add in the fact that in most cases the 'answers' provided by those projects mostly boiled down to "we don't know if anything is going on or if it is what it is" and you have hard time actually arguing the case they were carefully arranged to "hide" anything. Having reviewed several articles and video's on the incident my conclusion is there simply isn't enough hard evidence to decide WHAT it was since even the video can be 'explained' by something other than "aliens" or secret spy planes.
Randy
Those various things may not be "top secret" forever, but they may as well be, when organizations and companies lose all records for a project/program and all the principles and stakeholders die, what's left? Maybe the item comes out of storage somewhere or pictures show up, and nobody knows what the hell it is, or who worked on it or paid for it. For example....
Actually JUST because it's Top Secret doesn't automatically mean that the public doesn't have the "need to know" and the two don't always preclude sharing information on important subjects. There's also the issue that nothing remains Top Secret forever, or even 'a secret' since time will tend to expand the number of those who know and no one keeps quite forever. (Even the dead if you want to get technical... and more than bit morbid
Add in the fact that in most cases the 'answers' provided by those projects mostly boiled down to "we don't know if anything is going on or if it is what it is" and you have hard time actually arguing the case they were carefully arranged to "hide" anything. Having reviewed several articles and video's on the incident my conclusion is there simply isn't enough hard evidence to decide WHAT it was since even the video can be 'explained' by something other than "aliens" or secret spy planes.
Randy
An amazing reply. The public has no need to know certain things, period. That's just how things are. Regarding UFOs, no Project this or that since the 1940s has answered any questions. Meanwhile, speculation has buried historical UFO inquiry under layer on top of new layers of nonsense. It very much works to obscure the whole thing. Definitely the thing to do in order to hide something. There have been a number of closed-door sessions in the US government over the years. And so it stays closed.
Ed
If there were/are secret projects flying around then it's definite that someone was handed the baton as the years passed.
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,536
- Reaction score
- 14,786
That sounds just like the explanation people give for the black triangles. But they in turn seem to be based on the widespread misinterpretation of the so called Belgium case, which when you look into it is nothing like the widely reported so called public facts.
In_A_Dream
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 3 June 2019
- Messages
- 598
- Reaction score
- 522
US Military Aviators are reluctant to share their experiences for fear of retribution, but if you ever get lucky, they do have some great stories to share.
But more often than not "what" they do and do not need to know changes due to cirumstances. They didn't need to know how atomic weapons worked but that knowledge was out there anyway. (Which is why I got into a bit of trouble with the military, because my 8th grade school couldn't afford 'new' encylopeida's so I had to make do with ones from the late 50s
) That changed later, and it may change again so we can't assume the justification will always be there.Then you're not paying close enough attention to the results
For one thing it's very clear that "UFO's" come in waves and the amount of publicity and coverage were a major part in propigating the "sightings" along with the undependability of "eye witness" accounts. In the late 50s popularization of the "UFO" pheonomon has resulted in expansion, sensationalizm, and falsification of "known" incidents and evidence along with pushing the narrative that the 'government' knows more than it is saying and this has only gotten worse with the rise of the internet and world wide web. Any 'answers' are disregarded and buried by speculation by enthusisasts and amature researchers and any attempts to do any 'real' investigation are thwarted and degraded by those with actual commercial interest in seeing that no REAL explination every comes out. This is pretty easy to follow.In the former case you are quire correct but likely not for the reason you are refering too. UFO 'research' has a large economic aspect to it. People and organizations are paid significant amounts of money to ensure that "mysterious things seen in the sky/water/everywhere" remain mysterious or at least ensure that any reasonable explination remain "questionable". As I noted this is highly counter-productive to keeping anything 'secret' in any real sense because the obscuration and layers of nonsense are easily identified as such. Leading one towards the supposed 'hidden' answers. That many of those adding to this have gotten to the point where they must declare themselves the "only" source of true information only makes things worse for trying to 'hide' something.
Now of course SOME of this does in fact help obscure some government work and explains why there are those "closed-door sessions" but as well you need to keep in mind that it takes only one or two specific incidents of actual overlap to tie up ALL that meeting in secrecy. On the more professional side though each time one of those happens then the chances of a leak increase exponentially. And again long-term viability of any 'cover' is reduced again.
Then you'd have to explain why anyone thinks this would work given that historically it hasn't? As was noted earlier several past secret projects actually DID use "UFO" sightings as cover which didn't last very long so quite obviously as a long-term strategy it is pretty useless. Today even its short term utility is highly questionable due to the depth and breadth of the "UFO" investigation movement and those simply tracking 'government' programs. Worse "passing the baton" is never a easy, or assured of success in fact historically it only increases the chance of leaks and or total failure.
Randy
So do maintenance folks, a lot having to do with how gullible and often wrong US Military Aviators are about a whole lot of things
Randy
Similar threads
-
-
CNO Greenert Warns Congress of Fighter Shortfall, Hornet Line to Close 2017
- Started by Triton
- Replies: 1
-
-
South Korea successfully conducts third test flight of solid-fuel space rocket- Started by Flyaway
- Replies: 0
-
