New Super Hornet UAP video from 2015

1617713267079.png

That sounds like baloney. SNOOPIE teams are very well equipped with modern DSLR's. The only reason NOT to fire on the UAV's would be preventing the enemy from seeing your attack response. And the only reason you would withold an attack response, is if you knew exactly who's UAV's they were.
 
Since 1947, nothing but bad to very bad explanations regarding UFOs. I have no reason to believe that this will change. Example: The US Air Force contracted with the University of Colorado in 1966 to do a scientific study of UFOs. When the Condon Report was released in 1968, it continued the well-worn path of bad to very bad explanations. In 1969, I bought the paperback at over 1,000 pages. Junk... pure junk. Nothing approaching credible scholarship.
 
Last edited:
sublight is back said:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...he-u-s-and-the-pentagon-acts-like-theyre-ufos

We also noted that the most remarkable appearances of these objects seemed to correlate with major Navy exercises where these advances in air defense capabilities were being fully integrated across a Carrier Strike Group. In other words, it seemed that these mysterious craft had a very keen interest in America's latest and greatest operational counter-air capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
They are more likely to be US drones testing capabilities in the fleet. TR sure seems to be getting worked up in that article.
 
Flyaway said:
sublight is back said:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...he-u-s-and-the-pentagon-acts-like-theyre-ufos

We also noted that the most remarkable appearances of these objects seemed to correlate with major Navy exercises where these advances in air defense capabilities were being fully integrated across a Carrier Strike Group. In other words, it seemed that these mysterious craft had a very keen interest in America's latest and greatest operational counter-air capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
They are more likely to be US drones testing capabilities in the fleet. TR sure seems to be getting worked up in that article.
Click to expand...

If the Chinese were doing close quarters Sigint during the entirety of our AESA rollouts, then that is.... A gigantic problem.
 
I think metaphors are definitely being mixed here, intentionally so. Some of the images in the latest article are obviously balloons. IMHO, I think F/A-18 pilots know how balloons look. So, BS on the balloons theory. I'm not saying they aren't being launched, I'm saying pilots and ships would know what they are. I also think there are drones being intentionally flown around, both of U.S. origin, as it's the best test to see what they're capable of, and foreign origin to see what we're capable of. But the tic tac video may be a drone, but if so it's using a technology unknown to most of us. If it isn't our tech, then we're in deep doo-doo, because someone has paradigm shifting tech out there based on the accelerations and maneuvers actually witnessed by the SH pilots.
 
Sundog said:
I think metaphors are definitely being mixed here, intentionally so. Some of the images in the latest article are obviously balloons. IMHO, I think F/A-18 pilots know how balloons look. So, BS on the balloons theory. I'm not saying they aren't being launched, I'm saying pilots and ships would know what they are. I also think there are drones being intentionally flown around, both of U.S. origin, as it's the best test to see what they're capable of, and foreign origin to see what we're capable of. But the tic tac video may be a drone, but if so it's using a technology unknown to most of us. If it isn't our tech, then we're in deep doo-doo, because someone has paradigm shifting tech out there based on the accelerations and maneuvers actually witnessed by the SH pilots.
Click to expand...
Such activity just doesn't sound reasonable. You don't have "anomalies" in the air space with your superhornets, because if there is a collision, then your entire career is over right there, not to mention the ensuing court marshal for reckless endangerment. This was not even remotely a red flag type exercise. Where was the aggressor squadron? Were the pilots made aware of their presence?
 
edwest said:
Since 1947, nothing but bad to very bad explanations regarding UFOs. I have no reason to believe that this will change. Example: The US Air Force contracted with the University of Colorado in 1966 to do a scientific study of UFOs. When the Condon Report was released in 1968, it continued the well-worn path of bad to very bad explanations. In 1969, I bought the paperback at over 1,000 pages. Junk... pure junk. Nothing approaching credible scholarship.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you took one for the team.
sublight is back said:
Flyaway said:
sublight is back said:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...he-u-s-and-the-pentagon-acts-like-theyre-ufos

We also noted that the most remarkable appearances of these objects seemed to correlate with major Navy exercises where these advances in air defense capabilities were being fully integrated across a Carrier Strike Group. In other words, it seemed that these mysterious craft had a very keen interest in America's latest and greatest operational counter-air capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
They are more likely to be US drones testing capabilities in the fleet. TR sure seems to be getting worked up in that article.
Click to expand...

If the Chinese were doing close quarters Sigint during the entirety of our AESA rollouts, then that is.... A gigantic problem.
Click to expand...
If they have the ability to build craft of the apparent capability SIGINT is the LEAST of our problems.
 
This all straight from The Art of War by Sun Tzu, circa 5 B.C. No advantage is gained by making this sort of information available except to confuse the enemy and potential enemies.
 
sferrin said:
edwest said:
Since 1947, nothing but bad to very bad explanations regarding UFOs. I have no reason to believe that this will change. Example: The US Air Force contracted with the University of Colorado in 1966 to do a scientific study of UFOs. When the Condon Report was released in 1968, it continued the well-worn path of bad to very bad explanations. In 1969, I bought the paperback at over 1,000 pages. Junk... pure junk. Nothing approaching credible scholarship.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you took one for the team.
sublight is back said:
Flyaway said:
sublight is back said:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...he-u-s-and-the-pentagon-acts-like-theyre-ufos

We also noted that the most remarkable appearances of these objects seemed to correlate with major Navy exercises where these advances in air defense capabilities were being fully integrated across a Carrier Strike Group. In other words, it seemed that these mysterious craft had a very keen interest in America's latest and greatest operational counter-air capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
They are more likely to be US drones testing capabilities in the fleet. TR sure seems to be getting worked up in that article.
Click to expand...

If the Chinese were doing close quarters Sigint during the entirety of our AESA rollouts, then that is.... A gigantic problem.
Click to expand...
If they have the ability to build craft of the apparent capability SIGINT is the LEAST of our problems.
Click to expand...

I am not seeing this exotic or apparent capability, beyond that of a drone with some extra horsepower.

Remember this? It is not from another planet.

View: https://youtu.be/Fzxj1rnCUUg
 
sublight is back said:
sferrin said:
edwest said:
Since 1947, nothing but bad to very bad explanations regarding UFOs. I have no reason to believe that this will change. Example: The US Air Force contracted with the University of Colorado in 1966 to do a scientific study of UFOs. When the Condon Report was released in 1968, it continued the well-worn path of bad to very bad explanations. In 1969, I bought the paperback at over 1,000 pages. Junk... pure junk. Nothing approaching credible scholarship.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you took one for the team.
sublight is back said:
Flyaway said:
sublight is back said:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...he-u-s-and-the-pentagon-acts-like-theyre-ufos

We also noted that the most remarkable appearances of these objects seemed to correlate with major Navy exercises where these advances in air defense capabilities were being fully integrated across a Carrier Strike Group. In other words, it seemed that these mysterious craft had a very keen interest in America's latest and greatest operational counter-air capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
They are more likely to be US drones testing capabilities in the fleet. TR sure seems to be getting worked up in that article.
Click to expand...

If the Chinese were doing close quarters Sigint during the entirety of our AESA rollouts, then that is.... A gigantic problem.
Click to expand...
If they have the ability to build craft of the apparent capability SIGINT is the LEAST of our problems.
Click to expand...

I am not seeing this exotic or apparent capability, beyond that of a drone with some extra horsepower.

Remember this? It is not from another planet.

View: https://youtu.be/Fzxj1rnCUUg
Click to expand...
That's not going from 80,000 feet down to sea-level in seconds or traveling a dozen miles almost instantaneously.
 
Flyaway said:
sublight is back said:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...he-u-s-and-the-pentagon-acts-like-theyre-ufos

We also noted that the most remarkable appearances of these objects seemed to correlate with major Navy exercises where these advances in air defense capabilities were being fully integrated across a Carrier Strike Group. In other words, it seemed that these mysterious craft had a very keen interest in America's latest and greatest operational counter-air capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
They are more likely to be US drones testing capabilities in the fleet. TR sure seems to be getting worked up in that article.
Click to expand...
AMEN. When the incidences start increasing in number and in geographical regions outside of fleet exercises, then color me interested. TR gets the one thing right: these are man-made unknowns, most very likely by companies inside the CONUS.
 
sublight is back said:
sferrin said:
That's not going from 80,000 feet down to sea-level in seconds or traveling a dozen miles almost instantaneously.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe that happened?
Click to expand...
The videos I saw didn't look like quad copters. Wouldn't be surprised if an APG-79 had the power to fry one of those right out of the sky. (Not make it catch on fire, obviously, but fry it's electronics.)

Going just by what's out there that we know about, the possibilities are endless.



Got a DJI Mavic Mini and even what that little thing can do blows my mind. (Fast it isn't but the capability in something that small and inexpensive should have militaries around the world in a panic over what's coming.)
 
Last edited:
greenmartian2017 said:
most very likely by companies inside the CONUS.
Click to expand...

I think there is one other horrifying possibility that nobody here wants to accept. Look at the long history of American companies getting hacked by the Chinese. They've always faced pressure not to confront them for fear of reprisals from their cash cow.
Now it looks like the Navy faced the same political restrictions. They were diplomatically prevented from confrontations or making accusations but still had the same reporting requirements. What do you do? I would have loved to be in the meeting where they decided that the AATIP was the best option.
 
sublight is back said:
greenmartian2017 said:
most very likely by companies inside the CONUS.
Click to expand...

I think there is one other horrifying possibility that nobody here wants to accept. Look at the long history of American companies getting hacked by the Chinese. They've always faced pressure not to confront them for fear of reprisals from their cash cow.
Now it looks like the Navy faced the same political restrictions. They were diplomatically prevented from confrontations or making accusations but still had the same reporting requirements. What do you do? I would have loved to be in the meeting where they decided that the AATIP was the best option.
Click to expand...
Also consider China has four times the population as the US and is run by a wide assortment of specialties, including many former engineers and scientists. The US is run by mostly lawyers.
 
All the clues were there.


Chinese/Russian/etc hacking = advanced persistent threat.

"In 2006, the United States Air Force (USAF) analysts coined the term advanced persistent threat(APT) to facilitate discussion of intrusion activities with their uncleared civilian counterparts. Thus, the military teams could discuss the attack characteristics yet without revealing classified identities."

Chinese/Russian/etc ELINT/SIGINT = Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program.

I am sure there is similar verbiage out there for why the AAT term was created.
 
The speculation doesn't go far. Look at Air Technical Intelligence at Wright Field in 1947. They were getting and evaluating air intelligence along with the Air Force and Navy. Their goal: "To avoid technological surprise." In a report about guided missiles and pilotless aircraft published in May, 1946, the publisher is Headquarters Air Materiel Command at Wright Field. There is no reason to believe that the mission to defend North America has changed since then.

And regarding hacking, only a madman would use the internet as used by civilians. Another, highly encrypted version is rumored to exist.
 
So what's up with this, is there something to it? There is a lot of chatter in UFO tinhat circles, but hardly a peep here.
 
archipeppe said:
Flyaway said:
And another of these photos again from an F/A-18. In spite of what it says in the article it still looks like semi-deflated balloon to me.

https://thedebrief.org/leaked-photo-surfaces-of-purported-unidentified-aerial-phenomena/
Click to expand...
Nope, too much angles.

It is a sort of a crest-shaped object with a sort of bi-dimensional pattern extruded into the third dimension (you can see as a sort of a thickness).

This is the UAP:

View attachment 646027


And this is a partially inflated/deflated Stratospheric Balloon:

View attachment 646026
Click to expand...
The so called UFO looks to me like a Tomcat image, copied , flipped and superimposed.
 
As long as people write "tinhat circles," why should anyone respond? That said, I have every reason to believe that the US Nay and Air Force will continue to release more nonsense which they have been doing since 1947. The only new change - UAP, which means nothing.
 
Did I imagine this but wasn’t their a night vision of a triangular craft released recently but it looked to me as if you could see a flashing light underneath which looked part of the normal light setup on an aircraft, so how could that possible be a UFO?
 
Flyaway said:
Did I imagine this but wasn’t their a night vision of a triangular craft released recently but it looked to me as if you could see a flashing light underneath which looked part of the normal light setup on an aircraft, so how could that possible be a UFO?
Click to expand...
Yes. Looks like an IR strobe light ;)
 
TomcatViP said:
Flyaway said:
Did I imagine this but wasn’t their a night vision of a triangular craft released recently but it looked to me as if you could see a flashing light underneath which looked part of the normal light setup on an aircraft, so how could that possible be a UFO?
Click to expand...
Yes. Looks like an IR strobe light ;)
Click to expand...
It be looked rather like the infamous flying Dorito picture from 2014.

If you wanted to hide something like the NGAD demonstrator in plain sight it might be a good idea to suddenly kick up a fuss in the media about UFOs. I remember reading when the U-2 first started flying the USAF allowed sightings of it to be reported as UFOs as it suited their purposes. I imagine it isn’t the only airframe that would be well suited by an easily generated smokescreen. It helps that to the layperson most of these aircraft probably look increasingly exotic at first glance.
 
Last edited:
The U-2? It is to laugh. How many U-2s existed during the time period in question? How many flights? Where? The whole point of the U-2 was low observables. We didn't want it to be an easy target for the Russians to spot.

UFOs can apparently do whatever they want. They are advanced technology... maybe.
 
Let enough time pass and accuse everyone and anyone of "creating" something. Hollywood took the UFO story and ran with it. See the movie, The Flying Saucer (1950) which does not show a circular aircraft. UFOs, or flying saucers, started in 1947. The campaign to cover up what a private pilot saw, which were not circular aircraft, occurred a month after his report was released to the public.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom